This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed the aforementioned section. I have added a refutation section to counteract the bias of the aforementioned section. Note that this was July 2014, and probably BDS, which is hardly neutral. Perhaps the whole section should be deleted. ...Done so on seeing page history. -- Bellezzasolo ( talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit-warring about this will not be tolerated. I've protected the page for now. When protection ceases, further edit-warring will lead to blocks. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Dweller,
Please see the history of this page and the edits and content censorship that has taken place. At no point have I attempted to engage in 'warring' or 'content removal', unlike Mike Schwartz613 .
Additionally , I am neutral to this 'debate' and as such have been careful to add only verifiable sources and publicly reported accusations that have been made against the organization in question - user /info/en/?search=User:Bellezzasolo , as you can see from his page, is most certainly NOT dispassionate about this page as he is a publicly stated Zionist, whereas I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli or affiliated in any way. Might I suggest that user Mike Schwartz613 be blocked, as he is quite simply deleting content without engaging with the accusations, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I am happy to see a section refusing these accusations, but removing content is NOT acceptable to enlightened debate nor part of the stated goals of Wikipedia.
I simply have highlighted reported news items and inconsistencies that are present in the content supplied by the United Synagogues.
I therefore please request that you return the page to an editable status, as you can see that I continue to add new content, with fully attributable sources, unlike Mike Schwartz613 who continues to make claims about my motives that are unsubstantiated, nor does he add any further information, sources or value to the debate and issues surrounding the united Synagogues. This is the entire purposes of Wikipedia.
Kind regards
I.W
_________
A review of Internetwikier's user page indicates previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, most recently on December 2, 2014 /info/en/?search=User_talk:Internetwikier. A review of Internetwikier's contributions page reflects edits exclusively of Jewish religious organizations. It is possible that this user account was set up as a project of a BDS oriented person or group with the sole purpose of maligning Jewish groups. Administrators reviewing the history of this page will certainly note the previous violations referenced on user's contribution page.
________
Dear Dweller,
As highlighted above, Mike Schwartz613 has continued to reply on ad hominem attacks (I am not affiliated with the BDS, nor am I anti-Jewish) in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue: there exists published, substantiated, legitimate criticism that has been leveled at theUS.org.uk and the United Synagogues and this needs to be reflected in the page assigned to it. It makes no difference if the organization is religious, or secular, and the page should reflect this.
This is a clear case of people wanted to hide criticism that is already publicly available on the web from new sources - why would Wikipedia hide this? Mike Schwartz613 needs to ADD content, not delete what he wishes didn't exist in the public domain. admin: please address this.
________
Internetwikier would add much to the discussion on this forum if he would disclose what were cited as previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on his user page. It would benefit this discussion and possibly reveal his proported claim to neurality "to this 'debate'" as being a spurious assertion. I am under the impression that the contributor's previous violations will be reviewed by administrators looking into Dweller's page protection recommendation and might impact on contributor's rights to edit other Wiki pages.
________
Dear Dweller,
As Mike Schwartz613 well knows, the previous 'violations' were also as a result of Mike Schwartz613 and his constant deletion of content that was added, not only by myself, to pages relating to the United Synagogues. Except on this occasion I was too busy to contest the constant removal of content. However, this has now been raised to such a level of abuse of Wikipedia that I am not prepared to let this matter rest. I trust that you will be able to see, from the history of the pages, that ZERO content has ever been added by Mike Schwartz613 and as such his account should be restricted on this page, unless he agrees to add content to the page, refuting if he wishes WITH SOURCES, the accusations that have been made against the United Synagogues.
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Technical 13,
Please revert the action taken by :
(cur | prev) 09:32, 17 April 2015 Mike Schwartz613 (talk | contribs) . . (14,175 bytes) (-6,844) . . (Undid revision 656862906 by Internetwikier (talk) Reverse vandalism) (thank)
and restore the page to the fuller version.
Those who wish to contest the accusations, are free to do so. that is the purpose of a Wiki! Mike Schwartz613 however continues to just 'delete' content with no valid reason - all my sources are cited and referenced.
Internet Wikier
This
edit request to
United Synagogue has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Admins,
As can be seen on the talk page of this article: /info/en/?search=Talk:United_Synagogue a particular user, Mike Schwartz 613, is continuing to just simply 'delete' content that I have submitted(that is publicly available and cited by reputable news organizations) for no other reason than he does not like the fact that this information relates to the article in question.
I am very keen on a 'refutations' section being added, but to delete information is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
Many thanks, I.W. Internetwikier ( talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's VERY clear what changes need to be made, SEE THE CHANGE LOG to revert all edits done my MikeSchwartz which are simple content removal edits, or attempts at censorship, nothing more or less.
The format of criticism and refutations of said criticism is COMMON to ALL wiki pages - why the 'this is unfathomable, must be complex' dithering on your 'admins' part when it comes to resolving this? it's simple: I add content, Mike deletes it. I reference content, Mike deletes it. I provide first sources, Mike deletes them.
Please address this, asap. regards I.W _____
{{
edit protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
United Synagogue has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello Wikipedia Admins,
Please proceed to unlock this page for editing as there is no reason for editing to be blocked - MikeSchwartz613 is the only vandal on this page, and needs to be warned or blocked.
Other British Jewish organizations with pages on Wikipedia, such as /info/en/?search=Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies , also have, quite legitimately a criticism and controversies page, and it is in exactly this same vain that the United Synagogues should also contain a section with relevant information pertaining to the organization as a whole.
Others need to be able to edit this page again., and the block is unjustified.
Kind regards Internetwikier ( talk) 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done I'm the protecting admin. This needs to be sorted out properly. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Dwelller,
Please specify how you would like this to be 'sorted out properly', short of unprotecting the page and allowing those with information related to the organization to CONTRIBUTE something, rather than deleting material. If this needs to be escalated, or is above your admin level, then please do so. The current 'protect' status is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is a WP:NOCENSOR case, clear as daylight.
I.W
___ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)If you check the history of this article, you can see the following:
The page is currently protected to prevent further edit-warring. I have no opinion on the matter, but as an administrator, won't tolerate an edit-war. I encourage both sides to argue their case here for the material to be included or rejected.
Thank you -- Dweller ( talk) 10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per
Dweller in the parent section above, a consensus needs to be reached as to whether both sides of this controversy should be added to the article or not. I'll remind contributors to this discussion to keep the discussion
civil and avoid attacking other editors, focus on the content instead of what the other editors are doing or have done. Also, please be brief in making your arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thank you. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)1) The primary focus and mission of United Synagogue (US) is for the religious enhancement and knowledge of the Jewish community in the Commonwealth and to serve as a liaison between the various other faith communities both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. Political advocacy for Israel, to the extent that it even exists, is secondary to those other purposes.
2) Even a dispassionate observer to this page would question any edits sourced by organisations such as True Justice for Palestine, Stop the JNF (Jewish National Fund), Middle East Monitor, Soutien Palestine etc; groups which clearly have an agenda in the broader issue of the Arab Israeli conflict.
3) The stated purpose for protection status of this page are limited only to edits "that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" (note, I have no objection to ANY edits which are supported by the consensus of editors to this page by I question if the material suggested meets that test).
4) The editor proposing the requested changes has a Wiki profile reflecting edits exclusively to this page and the activity actually began in July 2014 around the same time that several BDS activists launched similar attacks on other Jewish, Israeli and Holocaust related Wiki pages a a result of the Gaza war last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dweller,
I appreciate your time, please see my response below:
Yes, this is true. The page, as it stood before my input, was a sanitized and inaccurate description of the organisations behavior, political stance and involvement on issues that are OUTSIDE of it's official remit. As such, this should be documented and reflected for all to see. this is EXACTLY the same as the layout for other pages that deal with other organisations that have similar criticism leveled against them, as I have already shown in my posts above.
This is correct, it was added by another user who offered their opinions, WITHOUT providing references or source material to corroborate their assertions. This is nothing to do with my input, and should be marked accordingly (removed, IMHO). I fail to see how this impacts upon my efforts to add extra information, which is fully referenced.
Incorrect. Editors have not been 'disagreeing' about what should be included or excluded. The reality is that one editor (Mike Schwartz) has been deleting content, while I (InternetWikier) have been adding sourced, referenced, independently verifiable information to the page, that is already in the public domain. This is clearly the purpose of Wikipedia, so I fail to see why you would lock the page, without chastising MikeSchwartz613 who is the source of the deletion-vandalism.
Please, address this fundamental issue of censorship that is taking place.
Internetwikier ( talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dweller, I don't mind eventually looking through the history, but is there any kind of summary (or even simply a map, if you will) of what the pieces in controversy are? StevenJ81 ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Problems with inserted section. The main WP policy problem is that, unless I'm missing something, these accusations themselves have not been covered by reliable sources, such as BBC and other media. (A letter to the editor would hardly suffice.) As a result, the section compile a range of info that is not linked to United Synagogue by reliable sources, so this appears to be Original Research (and not allowed in a WP article). The section heading itself is problematic and shows a POV. Given all this, the section is completely out of proportion to the article (Undue Emphasis). My recommendation is that no such material be added until the controversy is covered by reliable sources. Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue supports Israel to a great extent, and provides access to pro-Israel points of view to its members. Equally like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue comes under sometimes substantial criticism for doing so by parties with other perspectives, who would see the United Synagogue's religious function as being inconsistent with political support for Israel. See Israel-Palestinian Dispute (role of Jewish organizations) (or whatever the appropriate article would be).
Included: In response to StevenJ81's concerns that the material added to this article is 'original research' and as such disallowed on WP by policy, please see here: /info/en/?search=Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies
for examples of similar British Jewish organisations who have been publicly criticised for having a political, partisan, non-religious (and unnecessary, non-theological) interest and attachment to Israeli foreign & military policy, defending Israel at every stage and utilising THE SAME source material for their public educational campaigns as the united synagogue. This is a simple identical application of the policy of attaching the same criticism to The United Synagogues as to The Board of Deputies.
Please understand, no one is deputing that The United Synagogue (and likewise, the Board of Deputies of British Jews) play a vital role in the lives of many British Jews in the UK and abroad. However, what is less well know , BUT reported and referenced in the sources that I and others have provided, is that the United Synagogue is NOT agnostic when it comes to Israel, and has a very clear political message that it wishes to communicate about the role that Israel SHOULD play in the lives of British Jews: simply put, that it is central to British Jews lives and as such must be 'defended', ether overtly, or 'covertly' by reproducing education documents that themselves would fail ANY of Wikipedia's tests for original sourcing, references and historical veracity.
Criticisms of British Jewish organisations are such a WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED phenomenon that several phenomena British Jews have (to quote wikipedia itself: /info/en/?search=Independent_Jewish_Voices ) formed a 'break-away' Jewish organisation that
"On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organisation called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticising particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews.[11]
This is a documented fact. Why not allow the page to reflect this?
I would be interested to hear what those who constantly 'delete' my new content have to say on the issue of any criticisms, which of both the United Synagogue and The Board of Deputies of British Jews as both organisations have been criticised by public broadcast media, such as
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/9/independent_jewish_voices_new_british_group
Internetwikier ( talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:
Include material, add referenced counter-criticisms
With all due respect StevenJ81, your comment "Additionally, even if the controversy is covered by reliable sources, any coverage of this topic should not be out of proportion to its importance within the whole topic of the article" makes little sense unless you understand the importance of the message that this gives to those who would follow this organisation and its teachings: that Israel is central to A British Jews life, and that it is exclusively a Jewish project/country and the property of Jews, and Jews alone. Which it is not.
Again, with all due respect intended, please see my immediately subsequent point where I show you that, present on Wikipedia, is reporting that this issue of 'Israel' being of such fundamental importance to the United Synagogue is SO CONTENTIOUS that prominant British Jews have actually 'got of their 'asses' and bothered to form and entirely new, break-away organsiation that expressly REJECTS the premise that Isreal is for Jews and Jews alone! ( /info/en/?search=Independent_Jewish_Voices ).
I , and the rest of Wikipedia, would find it rather perplexing that you (who admits) to having little knowledge of the issue at hand, decide that because someone has bothered to flesh out, in copious detail, the criticisms pertaining to this organisation , that it counts as original research and 'unbalanced' due to its shear details (people should learn recognise detailed methodical research if you ask me), and hence is not allowed to be included on the very page that is designed to inform readers about the organisation.
Wikipedia is not the place to employ admins who are experts in every field: it is the place to allow those with competing viewpoints, as long as they are adequately referenced, to present their competing ideas. That is consensus. Contrary to Mike Schwartz asserting that my views are 'racist, anti-Semitic etc' I put it to you that I have broken no US law (as my views are neither racist, anti-Semitic not, untrue). To deny space to (referenced) criticism of an organisation is akin to not allowing a wiki page on the Nazi's to present critical negative 'unbalanced' ideas in their full just because no one has bothered to 'balance' this with in depth research on the Nazi's logistically impressive train timetabling & rail networks! Absolute nonsense, I'm sure you'll agree!
Internetwikier ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I take on board your criticism about formatting and citation syntax - I've I knew how , I would use it. Someone, more familar and adroit at using it, can I'm sure correct it. this is not ideal I know, but this is the way it is for now. I will try and change. However, as you point out, my content is properly sourced.
2) you may believe there is 'too much' in the article, but then this implies that you believe in 'relative' balance based purely on size, not on importance. If there is 'too little' elsewhere, why not add something yourself to readdress this imbalance. Or better still, encourage others such as MikeSchwartz613 to add content, as all he has done until now is delete content for no referenced reason.
I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.
3) I may have mis-attributed opinions to you rather than another contributor, I apologies. An honest mistake that should not detract from the points, that are referenced, that I raise.
4) I do have a POV, we all do. My use of the the colloquial 'asses' comment is nothing more than my attempt to highlighting that this issue isn't one that exist purely in my mind, but also in the mind of prominent British Jews: an issue to them that is so real, that they have gone to the effort, expense and time to break-away from established organisations and create their own. As this page currently stands, there are no criticism of theUS.org.uk organisation visible. So tell me, if that is the case, why did this break-away organisation bother to get established in the first place? This is the place to document the 'whys' , as they are sourced articles.
My POV is simply that the criticism be documented on Wikipedia, as well as refutations. Users are free to refute them, using sourced material. They may or may not be my 'personal opinion', but as long as they are referenced they should stand.
It is an obvious point, but I can not, nor should I be compelled to (as their is no moral, ethical nor wiki policy code) add 'more positive' content that I know nothing about. I know about the criticisms of this organisation, and reference their sources, which is what my contribution to the page will be. Sloppy as my citations are, they are all accurate and up to date.
5) I gladly accept your challenge, although I must ask: 'better sources'? You have, indirectly, said that you do not agree that the sources are 'good enough', yet they are of reputable quality including printed publications:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/halltext/90721h0002.htm</ref>Ben White, Palestinians in Israel, p12-13. (London: Pluto Press, 2012 http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/nakba-and-israels-60th-anniversary</ref> www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/14685-middle-east-peace-the-principles-behind-the-process
This seems to be setting the bar for source reputation beyond that of Pluto Press and the British Parliament publications house - a rather impossible task. And all of this to defend an organisation's wiki page that doesn't even deign to produce material with sources and references in it? This sounds peculiar. Bias, perhaps?
Finally, how can one 'edit' the page, if it's locked? Why not, as I suggested earlier, as those that disagree with the content, to refute the content based on merit. If my content is soo POV biased and un-useful, they should have no time in debunking the criticism that others have made against them. Why not make that the challange, get old Mike to do a bit of work, other than pressing the 'delete' key.
appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.
@StevenJ81,
Your kind offer is appreciated. When the sandbox is up, I'll reformat my efforts also.
many thanks Internetwikier ( talk) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Internetwikier:: I think I don't understand your recent edit that "As public records show this is the same registered office as the Office of the Chief Rabbi." I think what you are trying to to say is that the Chief Rabbi's address, according to his website, is in the offices of the United Synagogue. It seems you are trying to suggest that there is an organizational link between United Synagogue and the Chief Rabbi. But isn't this already stated explicitly in the preceding section, which says, "In religious and ritual matters it is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbi"? So what is the point of this addition?
Also, you write, "Both Ephraim Mirvis, the current chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks are known to be 'strong Zionists and supporters of the State of Israel.'[10] The educational material that the united Synagogues promotes on its website reflects this stance". Your edit suggests that the United Synagogue stance on Israel has been influenced - perhaps changed - by Mirvis and Sacks. Are you sure this is the case? Was United Synagogue not pro-Zionist prior to these two rabbis? I think you need a source if you want to suggest that the US support of Israel is the result of influence of Mirvis and Sacks. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ravpapa The point of the addition is that it reflects more than a procedural link between the two organisation, in that they share the same office space - the cross-pollination of ideas in such a situation is likely to be very strong. This is both a factual addition, and so not in any way controversial. The fact that you highlight this as an issue, when it is clearly stated in the public record (and not on Wikipedia) implies that you are overly sensitive to ANY additional information being added to this page. Your impartiality in this case is clearly in doubt. The point of the addition is simple: it enables the reader to better understand the relationship between the two organisations (including BICOM) and there is NO reason why this should be hidden from the public on Wikipedia.
I also 'infer' the the US has changed its stance on Zionism due to the addition of Sacks and Mirvis - and this is exactly what the sourced references show. It was indeed less pro Zionist before Sacks/Mirvis - if you wish to get pedantic the US.org.uk actually PRE-DATES the 'creation' of the idea of Zionism, so yes, Zionism has clearly altered the thinking at the top of the organisation over many years. This can be seen in evidence (to follow) when Israel is engaged in military operations the US.org.uk has been shown, and I will show with further sources over time, that it is uncritically supportive of Israel's military strategy and overall goals vis-a-vis the Palestinians, in the face of international public outrage and overwhelming criticism from both nation states and human rights organisations. This is a fact, and something that should be noted under criticisms. Why would you wish to hide this?
I'm sorry to have to ask this Ravpapa, but is it just me that finds it abhorrent that a religious organisation is meddling, taking a partisan, non dispassionate viewpoint on the promotion of the 'idea of a state' (which is what Zionism is) through military and political means at the expense of the human rights and dignity of many millions of people, be they Palestinians, refugees, Israel's non-Jewish citizens?
This is not what religious organisations are 'expected' or 'morally allowed' to do - it is NOT part of their remit.
Your continued pandering to the 'sensitivity' (including your own) of certain wikiEditiors is very apparent. This needs to be addressed.
@StevenJ81 Apologies, but I thought that I had added nothing controversial in the slightest: high quality reliable sources reporting on established facts (the address of an office, a publicly stated viewpoint). The sensitivity of some admins/editors here is clearly more important an issue than 'why' I have included an address. Do you not think? Internetwikier ( talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Deal with the edits proposed on what information they communicate to the wiki reader, not what YOU consider significant. I have recognized that there are criticisms of this organization and counter-criticisms: all I ask is that they are documented. Internetwikier ( talk) 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me remind you, first and foremost, that you're a 'Wiki Admin', not an expert on the issues at hand - so don' pretend to be. Reading Wikipedia exclusively does not an expert make. That you'd like to see, and I quote 'all of this gone from here' means that you're in no position to sit in judgement on this - get another admin involved, immediately, before I do. It is readily apparent to all of Wikipedia, and I hope other wikiAdmins, that YOUR inherent bias has now become self evident: you have failed to provide precisely one quote or reference for all of your unsubstantiated assertions regarding Israel, Palestine and the motives of the actors involved. Are you now going to mark your content for automatic deletion, as per wiki-rules? I thought not.
To address your concerns: It is not my job, nor responsibility, to provide a 'complete and exhaustive' analysis of the united synagogue - that is for others to complete the rest of the page pertaining to this organization as they see fit. If they provide quotes, then I'm all for it. I've never said otherwise. I add content, referenced, for that which I know to have been said by others. That is not in dispute. Likewise, if you provided some references, and the content was in any way related to the united synagogue, then it should stand.
Yet your ramble about 'Israel being the state of the Jewish people' is by no means an uncontested 'fact' as you have framed it (check out the Wikipedia page on that issues if you disagree and add your material there. I guarantee you it won't stand without a reference), so it has no place in this discussion. I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you. How can that be that I don't see Israel as 'my state', or 'a state for all Jews', or even, as the Zionists would have you believe, as a 'justifiable entity' IF it comes at the expense of the human rights and dignity of 4.5 million Palestinians. You do not speak for me, or many others, so don't pretend to. Add your references, fine, otherwise it's just 'opinion'. And, again, that is not what wikipedia is about.
And as for the rest of your context-free tidbits about 'Arab riots against Jews throughout the mid-twentieth century', then I think you'll need to be more specific before anyone can even engage with such a comment: might you mean the 1936 Arab uprising against British Mandate rule? Thought you might: try and be more specific if you can, it is the purpose of Wikipedia after all.
You want to talk about the two-state solution? Fantastic! Might I suggest that you get on the wiki page for that issues and give it a go. I'll be ready to read the constructive, referenced, material that you have to offer. I shan't hold my breath.
As for this 'gem', "And why not talk about that United Synagogue also supports the Israel that is the first country to send emergency crews to global disaster spots like Haiti and Nepal?" where to begin!? Enough already. Like seriously, did you really write that? And you're an admin?
Let me spell it out to you so that you understand your job as wikiAdmin. You're here to make sure that:
1) Original content added to page is referenced by reliable sources, and not subject to copyright. 2) Space is made for counter-criticism to be aired, if it exists. 3) It doesn't break any national laws.
Period.
In this context, for theUs.org.uk it means that
1) the reader of this page should be made aware of political stance that theUS.org.uk has regarding Israel (as the organization itself makes frequent and central reference to the State of Israel, this is not only justified but essential if the page is to have any credibility) 2) criticisms of this organization's stance regarding Israel should be listed, subject to references, as they are inherently controversial (this 'talk page' itself is proof of that) 3) counter-criticism should be allowed, IF and ONLY IF referenced.
You're assertion that 'balance' should exist is a oft' trotted-out and misunderstood one: the Nazi's do not #require# a page on Wikipedia to balance their morally reprehensible behavior before and during WW2. You're free to add 'balancing content' (if there exists any!) if you wish, but that does not mean that it 'must be present' for the entirely justifiable criticism of the Third-Reich to be copious, detailed and continuously refined as more come to light. This is the same situation we have here, in principle at least.
This is a very simple matter, that YOU are making an issue out of - criticisms of this organization do exist, made by respected organizations and individuals, so allow them to be documented. It is not your role to block content addition that is referenced. You can re-order it, request it be 'cleaned-up, but not block it out of some readily apparent ideological and political bias that you appear to have.
If you chose to hide these referenced criticisms then you're on your own 'mission'. And that is a problem for a wikiAdmin, don't you feel?
Internetwikier ( talk) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather curious, @Internetwikier wrote on April 17 under the Page Protection heading "I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli" yet on April 26 under the Same Address heading, he concedes "I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you". It would appear that @Internetwikier is dealing with bigger issues in his life than this discussion allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Mike Schwartz613: Good to see you engaging intellectually with the points being made Mike, the sure sign of a mammoth intellect and not a hasbara-robot-machine. How about you provide some references, eh? Secular Jewish is a perfectly acceptable place to be in 2015, I'll be fine. thanks for your concern. Internetwikier ( talk) 06:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see the US's support for Israel any more abhorrent than, for example, the Dalai Lama's support for an independent Tibet, or of the Pope taking a position opposing abortion." Please consider that there are different levels of support. For instance there can be support for the existence of a Jewish state in accordance with the prescription presented in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and there can be support for an Israel that permits and supports settlers and army infrastructures taking possession of large sections even of West Bank territories. A relevant content on the form and extent of the Zionism expressed by the United Synagogue should rightly be included in the article and, especially to extents that this goes beyond Free Tibet type arguments, this should be reported.
Suggest the editor focus on something else" but I am not sure whether this is a recommendation to leave this article entirely. Greg Kaye 13:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Why am I quibbling over minutiae with Internetwikier? Almost this entire article is copied from the United Synagogue website, and is a copyright violation.
I have deleted the sections that I found verbatim on the website. I am sure other sections are also violations, but I didn't have time to look carefully. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@
Ravpapa: Good idea to remove the copied content, that's not what wp is about after all.
Minutiae it most certainly isn't: factually accurate content, referenced, is to be allowed on here.
Internetwikier ( talk) 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article to remove copyright violations and vandalism. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You are not providing sources for your assertions and you are attempting to censor the edits that do have references. do not do this without providing references or I will involve admins.
Internetwikier (
talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Interwikier:: The material you have added to this page is synthesis, misleading, and constitutes vandalism. You cite as a source for your claim that "The organization has never shied away from taking positions on controversial political issues" a Telegraph article that does not mention United Synagogue. You quote a website called "PressTV" which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You cite a Jewish Chronicle article to support your statement that "The United Synagogue led its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants with this issue," but the article says no such thing.
I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing this article, if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Disputes over the reliability of sources can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all "state TV" stations are the same. Some, such as the BBC, just get arms-length funding from the government in return for providing public services. Others, such as Press TV and RT, toe the government line in order to spread propaganda. Sources in the latter group are generally not reliable sources. Well, perhaps Press TV is a reliable source for mundane events in Iran, but not for international relations, and certainly not for rants about "zionist pressure groups". bobrayner ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to post at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
On what basis is the source of footnote 7 , http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/contact , an unbiased , verifiable and reliable source of information fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Internetwikier ( talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I would ask you, and the rest of Wikipedia, to examine how you have unquestioningly given the Jewish Encyclopedia, a US run non-profit organization, a 'free pass' regarding its inclusion as a valid source (with no way to independently check sources, as MY professor has pointed out!) and yet drawn attention to the Iranian provenience of PressTV, eliciting a well documented form of latent racism/anti-Iranian sentiment common to American citizens and publications that implies some perceived anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli bias.
Ask yourself this: If PressTV were run by, say, Argentinian, Australian, or the American state would you still assert that it is an invalid source of news? Or what if we replace PressTV with MSNBC - would this still be a 'controversial' source of news, considering the very public predilection that the United Synagogue has to actively promote Israel at every opportunity? I think not.
It's no secret here that most Wiki editors on the English version are from a United States background and with that comes an almost unconscious bias against anything Iranian, for the most part. Israeli's are even more extreme in their anti-Iranian bias. This needs to be considered when attempting to slur news organizations with racist, nationalistic tropes. There is no documented anti-Jewish sentiment from Iran - quite the contrary in fact - with a long and positive cultural history of Jews co-existing peacefully in Iran for many hundreds of years. I think you need to examine closely your ideas of US News organization hegemony and accept that many other people and nations see things VERY differently to US/Western European vantage points. Wiki should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you a comedian? http://global100.adl.org/#country/iran - 56% anti-Semitism! What about Ahmadinejad? I'm sorry, but that "no documented anti-Jewish sentiment" thing is the funniest thing I've heard for years! As for Israelis, do you realize plenty of Israelis are Iranian immigrants! Are they biased against Iran? No, you'll find Iran is psychotically biased against Israel. BTW, you might want to click where it says "choose subject" and select the Holocaust - 30% heard of, 63% denial. Bellezzasolo ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC
"The Anti-Defamation League commissioned First International Resources to research attitudes and opinions toward Jews in more than 100 countries around the world. Fieldwork and data collection for this global public opinion project were conducted and coordinated by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. All interviews were conducted between July 2013 and February 2014. The data is a result of 53,100 total interviews among citizens aged 18 and over, across 101 countries and the Palestinian Territories in the West Bank & Gaza. Expected margin of sampling error for the weighted global average is +/- 0.97%, for the countries/territories surveyed with n=500 interviews it is +/- 4.4% and for countries sampled with n=1,000 interviews it is +/- 3.2%. The margin of error is higher for sub-groups within each geography. Interviews were conducted via landline telephones, mobile phones and face-to-face discussions in 96 languages (including many dialects and pidgin/creole versions). All respondents were selected at random. Telephone respondents were selected using random-digit dial sampling; face-to-face respondents were selected using geographically stratified, randomly-selected sampling points in each country and at the household level, using a Kish grid." Does that sound unreliable to you? I do statistics by the way.
As for Israel supporting ADL, if it's true (which it may well be), does that make a survey on anti-Semitism automatically biased? Would the same be true if Pakistan funded an Islamophobia survey. Tiny sample sizes? You must be joking. -- Bellezzasolo ( talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote the section on support for Israel, and added a paragraph about organizations (two) that arose as counters to the pro-Israeli positions of the United Synagogue and other establishment Jewish organizations of Britain. I erred in the footnotes for this paragraph, and Dweller (correctly) deleted it as the footnote did not support the paragraph.
I have now put in the right footnotes. But I have no strong feelings about this paragraph, and if other editors think that controversy over the US's positions is inflated, I would be perfectly happy to remove it. If we remove it, I think we should just include the first paragraph in the section on Activities, and leave it at that.
Opinions invited. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Later: Dweller points out that neither of the references I gave cites US directly. There are references to the US on their websites, but I though that would be a bit over the edge. I now think that Dweller was right the first time, and we should just delete the paragraph. I await other opinions before proceeding. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I added links to Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council. I don't think that goes against the consensus above about support by the board for (the existence of) Israel (which I didn't mention). If I am wrong, please revert me and discuss. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81: @ GregKaye: You appear to have been most recently involved on this talk page. I see an IP user has requested assistance on most recent content removal, call unanswered. Can you assist? 82.97.37.7 ( talk) 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Hroðulf: Hi Hroðulf, appreciate your formatting corrections on the previous entry. User Internetwikier appears currently banned although I'm not sure this is forever - controversial as her (his?) edits are some of them do seem to highlight an apparent bias in wiki-contributors to this page. Are you perhaps willing to assist with the user request to arbitrate on the recent sourced content removal by previous 78.26 whose comment 'Quack' doesn't seem to be sufficient justification for content removal. If sourced I feel this material should appear in the article, although where about exactly is important too. Thoughts? 82.97.37.7 ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed the aforementioned section. I have added a refutation section to counteract the bias of the aforementioned section. Note that this was July 2014, and probably BDS, which is hardly neutral. Perhaps the whole section should be deleted. ...Done so on seeing page history. -- Bellezzasolo ( talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit-warring about this will not be tolerated. I've protected the page for now. When protection ceases, further edit-warring will lead to blocks. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Dweller,
Please see the history of this page and the edits and content censorship that has taken place. At no point have I attempted to engage in 'warring' or 'content removal', unlike Mike Schwartz613 .
Additionally , I am neutral to this 'debate' and as such have been careful to add only verifiable sources and publicly reported accusations that have been made against the organization in question - user /info/en/?search=User:Bellezzasolo , as you can see from his page, is most certainly NOT dispassionate about this page as he is a publicly stated Zionist, whereas I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli or affiliated in any way. Might I suggest that user Mike Schwartz613 be blocked, as he is quite simply deleting content without engaging with the accusations, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I am happy to see a section refusing these accusations, but removing content is NOT acceptable to enlightened debate nor part of the stated goals of Wikipedia.
I simply have highlighted reported news items and inconsistencies that are present in the content supplied by the United Synagogues.
I therefore please request that you return the page to an editable status, as you can see that I continue to add new content, with fully attributable sources, unlike Mike Schwartz613 who continues to make claims about my motives that are unsubstantiated, nor does he add any further information, sources or value to the debate and issues surrounding the united Synagogues. This is the entire purposes of Wikipedia.
Kind regards
I.W
_________
A review of Internetwikier's user page indicates previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, most recently on December 2, 2014 /info/en/?search=User_talk:Internetwikier. A review of Internetwikier's contributions page reflects edits exclusively of Jewish religious organizations. It is possible that this user account was set up as a project of a BDS oriented person or group with the sole purpose of maligning Jewish groups. Administrators reviewing the history of this page will certainly note the previous violations referenced on user's contribution page.
________
Dear Dweller,
As highlighted above, Mike Schwartz613 has continued to reply on ad hominem attacks (I am not affiliated with the BDS, nor am I anti-Jewish) in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue: there exists published, substantiated, legitimate criticism that has been leveled at theUS.org.uk and the United Synagogues and this needs to be reflected in the page assigned to it. It makes no difference if the organization is religious, or secular, and the page should reflect this.
This is a clear case of people wanted to hide criticism that is already publicly available on the web from new sources - why would Wikipedia hide this? Mike Schwartz613 needs to ADD content, not delete what he wishes didn't exist in the public domain. admin: please address this.
________
Internetwikier would add much to the discussion on this forum if he would disclose what were cited as previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on his user page. It would benefit this discussion and possibly reveal his proported claim to neurality "to this 'debate'" as being a spurious assertion. I am under the impression that the contributor's previous violations will be reviewed by administrators looking into Dweller's page protection recommendation and might impact on contributor's rights to edit other Wiki pages.
________
Dear Dweller,
As Mike Schwartz613 well knows, the previous 'violations' were also as a result of Mike Schwartz613 and his constant deletion of content that was added, not only by myself, to pages relating to the United Synagogues. Except on this occasion I was too busy to contest the constant removal of content. However, this has now been raised to such a level of abuse of Wikipedia that I am not prepared to let this matter rest. I trust that you will be able to see, from the history of the pages, that ZERO content has ever been added by Mike Schwartz613 and as such his account should be restricted on this page, unless he agrees to add content to the page, refuting if he wishes WITH SOURCES, the accusations that have been made against the United Synagogues.
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Technical 13,
Please revert the action taken by :
(cur | prev) 09:32, 17 April 2015 Mike Schwartz613 (talk | contribs) . . (14,175 bytes) (-6,844) . . (Undid revision 656862906 by Internetwikier (talk) Reverse vandalism) (thank)
and restore the page to the fuller version.
Those who wish to contest the accusations, are free to do so. that is the purpose of a Wiki! Mike Schwartz613 however continues to just 'delete' content with no valid reason - all my sources are cited and referenced.
Internet Wikier
This
edit request to
United Synagogue has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Admins,
As can be seen on the talk page of this article: /info/en/?search=Talk:United_Synagogue a particular user, Mike Schwartz 613, is continuing to just simply 'delete' content that I have submitted(that is publicly available and cited by reputable news organizations) for no other reason than he does not like the fact that this information relates to the article in question.
I am very keen on a 'refutations' section being added, but to delete information is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
Many thanks, I.W. Internetwikier ( talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's VERY clear what changes need to be made, SEE THE CHANGE LOG to revert all edits done my MikeSchwartz which are simple content removal edits, or attempts at censorship, nothing more or less.
The format of criticism and refutations of said criticism is COMMON to ALL wiki pages - why the 'this is unfathomable, must be complex' dithering on your 'admins' part when it comes to resolving this? it's simple: I add content, Mike deletes it. I reference content, Mike deletes it. I provide first sources, Mike deletes them.
Please address this, asap. regards I.W _____
{{
edit protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
United Synagogue has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello Wikipedia Admins,
Please proceed to unlock this page for editing as there is no reason for editing to be blocked - MikeSchwartz613 is the only vandal on this page, and needs to be warned or blocked.
Other British Jewish organizations with pages on Wikipedia, such as /info/en/?search=Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies , also have, quite legitimately a criticism and controversies page, and it is in exactly this same vain that the United Synagogues should also contain a section with relevant information pertaining to the organization as a whole.
Others need to be able to edit this page again., and the block is unjustified.
Kind regards Internetwikier ( talk) 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done I'm the protecting admin. This needs to be sorted out properly. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Dwelller,
Please specify how you would like this to be 'sorted out properly', short of unprotecting the page and allowing those with information related to the organization to CONTRIBUTE something, rather than deleting material. If this needs to be escalated, or is above your admin level, then please do so. The current 'protect' status is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is a WP:NOCENSOR case, clear as daylight.
I.W
___ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)If you check the history of this article, you can see the following:
The page is currently protected to prevent further edit-warring. I have no opinion on the matter, but as an administrator, won't tolerate an edit-war. I encourage both sides to argue their case here for the material to be included or rejected.
Thank you -- Dweller ( talk) 10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per
Dweller in the parent section above, a consensus needs to be reached as to whether both sides of this controversy should be added to the article or not. I'll remind contributors to this discussion to keep the discussion
civil and avoid attacking other editors, focus on the content instead of what the other editors are doing or have done. Also, please be brief in making your arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thank you. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)1) The primary focus and mission of United Synagogue (US) is for the religious enhancement and knowledge of the Jewish community in the Commonwealth and to serve as a liaison between the various other faith communities both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. Political advocacy for Israel, to the extent that it even exists, is secondary to those other purposes.
2) Even a dispassionate observer to this page would question any edits sourced by organisations such as True Justice for Palestine, Stop the JNF (Jewish National Fund), Middle East Monitor, Soutien Palestine etc; groups which clearly have an agenda in the broader issue of the Arab Israeli conflict.
3) The stated purpose for protection status of this page are limited only to edits "that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" (note, I have no objection to ANY edits which are supported by the consensus of editors to this page by I question if the material suggested meets that test).
4) The editor proposing the requested changes has a Wiki profile reflecting edits exclusively to this page and the activity actually began in July 2014 around the same time that several BDS activists launched similar attacks on other Jewish, Israeli and Holocaust related Wiki pages a a result of the Gaza war last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dweller,
I appreciate your time, please see my response below:
Yes, this is true. The page, as it stood before my input, was a sanitized and inaccurate description of the organisations behavior, political stance and involvement on issues that are OUTSIDE of it's official remit. As such, this should be documented and reflected for all to see. this is EXACTLY the same as the layout for other pages that deal with other organisations that have similar criticism leveled against them, as I have already shown in my posts above.
This is correct, it was added by another user who offered their opinions, WITHOUT providing references or source material to corroborate their assertions. This is nothing to do with my input, and should be marked accordingly (removed, IMHO). I fail to see how this impacts upon my efforts to add extra information, which is fully referenced.
Incorrect. Editors have not been 'disagreeing' about what should be included or excluded. The reality is that one editor (Mike Schwartz) has been deleting content, while I (InternetWikier) have been adding sourced, referenced, independently verifiable information to the page, that is already in the public domain. This is clearly the purpose of Wikipedia, so I fail to see why you would lock the page, without chastising MikeSchwartz613 who is the source of the deletion-vandalism.
Please, address this fundamental issue of censorship that is taking place.
Internetwikier ( talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dweller, I don't mind eventually looking through the history, but is there any kind of summary (or even simply a map, if you will) of what the pieces in controversy are? StevenJ81 ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Problems with inserted section. The main WP policy problem is that, unless I'm missing something, these accusations themselves have not been covered by reliable sources, such as BBC and other media. (A letter to the editor would hardly suffice.) As a result, the section compile a range of info that is not linked to United Synagogue by reliable sources, so this appears to be Original Research (and not allowed in a WP article). The section heading itself is problematic and shows a POV. Given all this, the section is completely out of proportion to the article (Undue Emphasis). My recommendation is that no such material be added until the controversy is covered by reliable sources. Thanks! ProfGray ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue supports Israel to a great extent, and provides access to pro-Israel points of view to its members. Equally like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue comes under sometimes substantial criticism for doing so by parties with other perspectives, who would see the United Synagogue's religious function as being inconsistent with political support for Israel. See Israel-Palestinian Dispute (role of Jewish organizations) (or whatever the appropriate article would be).
Included: In response to StevenJ81's concerns that the material added to this article is 'original research' and as such disallowed on WP by policy, please see here: /info/en/?search=Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies
for examples of similar British Jewish organisations who have been publicly criticised for having a political, partisan, non-religious (and unnecessary, non-theological) interest and attachment to Israeli foreign & military policy, defending Israel at every stage and utilising THE SAME source material for their public educational campaigns as the united synagogue. This is a simple identical application of the policy of attaching the same criticism to The United Synagogues as to The Board of Deputies.
Please understand, no one is deputing that The United Synagogue (and likewise, the Board of Deputies of British Jews) play a vital role in the lives of many British Jews in the UK and abroad. However, what is less well know , BUT reported and referenced in the sources that I and others have provided, is that the United Synagogue is NOT agnostic when it comes to Israel, and has a very clear political message that it wishes to communicate about the role that Israel SHOULD play in the lives of British Jews: simply put, that it is central to British Jews lives and as such must be 'defended', ether overtly, or 'covertly' by reproducing education documents that themselves would fail ANY of Wikipedia's tests for original sourcing, references and historical veracity.
Criticisms of British Jewish organisations are such a WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED phenomenon that several phenomena British Jews have (to quote wikipedia itself: /info/en/?search=Independent_Jewish_Voices ) formed a 'break-away' Jewish organisation that
"On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organisation called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticising particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews.[11]
This is a documented fact. Why not allow the page to reflect this?
I would be interested to hear what those who constantly 'delete' my new content have to say on the issue of any criticisms, which of both the United Synagogue and The Board of Deputies of British Jews as both organisations have been criticised by public broadcast media, such as
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/9/independent_jewish_voices_new_british_group
Internetwikier ( talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:
Include material, add referenced counter-criticisms
With all due respect StevenJ81, your comment "Additionally, even if the controversy is covered by reliable sources, any coverage of this topic should not be out of proportion to its importance within the whole topic of the article" makes little sense unless you understand the importance of the message that this gives to those who would follow this organisation and its teachings: that Israel is central to A British Jews life, and that it is exclusively a Jewish project/country and the property of Jews, and Jews alone. Which it is not.
Again, with all due respect intended, please see my immediately subsequent point where I show you that, present on Wikipedia, is reporting that this issue of 'Israel' being of such fundamental importance to the United Synagogue is SO CONTENTIOUS that prominant British Jews have actually 'got of their 'asses' and bothered to form and entirely new, break-away organsiation that expressly REJECTS the premise that Isreal is for Jews and Jews alone! ( /info/en/?search=Independent_Jewish_Voices ).
I , and the rest of Wikipedia, would find it rather perplexing that you (who admits) to having little knowledge of the issue at hand, decide that because someone has bothered to flesh out, in copious detail, the criticisms pertaining to this organisation , that it counts as original research and 'unbalanced' due to its shear details (people should learn recognise detailed methodical research if you ask me), and hence is not allowed to be included on the very page that is designed to inform readers about the organisation.
Wikipedia is not the place to employ admins who are experts in every field: it is the place to allow those with competing viewpoints, as long as they are adequately referenced, to present their competing ideas. That is consensus. Contrary to Mike Schwartz asserting that my views are 'racist, anti-Semitic etc' I put it to you that I have broken no US law (as my views are neither racist, anti-Semitic not, untrue). To deny space to (referenced) criticism of an organisation is akin to not allowing a wiki page on the Nazi's to present critical negative 'unbalanced' ideas in their full just because no one has bothered to 'balance' this with in depth research on the Nazi's logistically impressive train timetabling & rail networks! Absolute nonsense, I'm sure you'll agree!
Internetwikier ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I take on board your criticism about formatting and citation syntax - I've I knew how , I would use it. Someone, more familar and adroit at using it, can I'm sure correct it. this is not ideal I know, but this is the way it is for now. I will try and change. However, as you point out, my content is properly sourced.
2) you may believe there is 'too much' in the article, but then this implies that you believe in 'relative' balance based purely on size, not on importance. If there is 'too little' elsewhere, why not add something yourself to readdress this imbalance. Or better still, encourage others such as MikeSchwartz613 to add content, as all he has done until now is delete content for no referenced reason.
I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.
3) I may have mis-attributed opinions to you rather than another contributor, I apologies. An honest mistake that should not detract from the points, that are referenced, that I raise.
4) I do have a POV, we all do. My use of the the colloquial 'asses' comment is nothing more than my attempt to highlighting that this issue isn't one that exist purely in my mind, but also in the mind of prominent British Jews: an issue to them that is so real, that they have gone to the effort, expense and time to break-away from established organisations and create their own. As this page currently stands, there are no criticism of theUS.org.uk organisation visible. So tell me, if that is the case, why did this break-away organisation bother to get established in the first place? This is the place to document the 'whys' , as they are sourced articles.
My POV is simply that the criticism be documented on Wikipedia, as well as refutations. Users are free to refute them, using sourced material. They may or may not be my 'personal opinion', but as long as they are referenced they should stand.
It is an obvious point, but I can not, nor should I be compelled to (as their is no moral, ethical nor wiki policy code) add 'more positive' content that I know nothing about. I know about the criticisms of this organisation, and reference their sources, which is what my contribution to the page will be. Sloppy as my citations are, they are all accurate and up to date.
5) I gladly accept your challenge, although I must ask: 'better sources'? You have, indirectly, said that you do not agree that the sources are 'good enough', yet they are of reputable quality including printed publications:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/halltext/90721h0002.htm</ref>Ben White, Palestinians in Israel, p12-13. (London: Pluto Press, 2012 http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/nakba-and-israels-60th-anniversary</ref> www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/14685-middle-east-peace-the-principles-behind-the-process
This seems to be setting the bar for source reputation beyond that of Pluto Press and the British Parliament publications house - a rather impossible task. And all of this to defend an organisation's wiki page that doesn't even deign to produce material with sources and references in it? This sounds peculiar. Bias, perhaps?
Finally, how can one 'edit' the page, if it's locked? Why not, as I suggested earlier, as those that disagree with the content, to refute the content based on merit. If my content is soo POV biased and un-useful, they should have no time in debunking the criticism that others have made against them. Why not make that the challange, get old Mike to do a bit of work, other than pressing the 'delete' key.
appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.
@StevenJ81,
Your kind offer is appreciated. When the sandbox is up, I'll reformat my efforts also.
many thanks Internetwikier ( talk) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Internetwikier:: I think I don't understand your recent edit that "As public records show this is the same registered office as the Office of the Chief Rabbi." I think what you are trying to to say is that the Chief Rabbi's address, according to his website, is in the offices of the United Synagogue. It seems you are trying to suggest that there is an organizational link between United Synagogue and the Chief Rabbi. But isn't this already stated explicitly in the preceding section, which says, "In religious and ritual matters it is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbi"? So what is the point of this addition?
Also, you write, "Both Ephraim Mirvis, the current chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks are known to be 'strong Zionists and supporters of the State of Israel.'[10] The educational material that the united Synagogues promotes on its website reflects this stance". Your edit suggests that the United Synagogue stance on Israel has been influenced - perhaps changed - by Mirvis and Sacks. Are you sure this is the case? Was United Synagogue not pro-Zionist prior to these two rabbis? I think you need a source if you want to suggest that the US support of Israel is the result of influence of Mirvis and Sacks. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ravpapa The point of the addition is that it reflects more than a procedural link between the two organisation, in that they share the same office space - the cross-pollination of ideas in such a situation is likely to be very strong. This is both a factual addition, and so not in any way controversial. The fact that you highlight this as an issue, when it is clearly stated in the public record (and not on Wikipedia) implies that you are overly sensitive to ANY additional information being added to this page. Your impartiality in this case is clearly in doubt. The point of the addition is simple: it enables the reader to better understand the relationship between the two organisations (including BICOM) and there is NO reason why this should be hidden from the public on Wikipedia.
I also 'infer' the the US has changed its stance on Zionism due to the addition of Sacks and Mirvis - and this is exactly what the sourced references show. It was indeed less pro Zionist before Sacks/Mirvis - if you wish to get pedantic the US.org.uk actually PRE-DATES the 'creation' of the idea of Zionism, so yes, Zionism has clearly altered the thinking at the top of the organisation over many years. This can be seen in evidence (to follow) when Israel is engaged in military operations the US.org.uk has been shown, and I will show with further sources over time, that it is uncritically supportive of Israel's military strategy and overall goals vis-a-vis the Palestinians, in the face of international public outrage and overwhelming criticism from both nation states and human rights organisations. This is a fact, and something that should be noted under criticisms. Why would you wish to hide this?
I'm sorry to have to ask this Ravpapa, but is it just me that finds it abhorrent that a religious organisation is meddling, taking a partisan, non dispassionate viewpoint on the promotion of the 'idea of a state' (which is what Zionism is) through military and political means at the expense of the human rights and dignity of many millions of people, be they Palestinians, refugees, Israel's non-Jewish citizens?
This is not what religious organisations are 'expected' or 'morally allowed' to do - it is NOT part of their remit.
Your continued pandering to the 'sensitivity' (including your own) of certain wikiEditiors is very apparent. This needs to be addressed.
@StevenJ81 Apologies, but I thought that I had added nothing controversial in the slightest: high quality reliable sources reporting on established facts (the address of an office, a publicly stated viewpoint). The sensitivity of some admins/editors here is clearly more important an issue than 'why' I have included an address. Do you not think? Internetwikier ( talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
-- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Deal with the edits proposed on what information they communicate to the wiki reader, not what YOU consider significant. I have recognized that there are criticisms of this organization and counter-criticisms: all I ask is that they are documented. Internetwikier ( talk) 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me remind you, first and foremost, that you're a 'Wiki Admin', not an expert on the issues at hand - so don' pretend to be. Reading Wikipedia exclusively does not an expert make. That you'd like to see, and I quote 'all of this gone from here' means that you're in no position to sit in judgement on this - get another admin involved, immediately, before I do. It is readily apparent to all of Wikipedia, and I hope other wikiAdmins, that YOUR inherent bias has now become self evident: you have failed to provide precisely one quote or reference for all of your unsubstantiated assertions regarding Israel, Palestine and the motives of the actors involved. Are you now going to mark your content for automatic deletion, as per wiki-rules? I thought not.
To address your concerns: It is not my job, nor responsibility, to provide a 'complete and exhaustive' analysis of the united synagogue - that is for others to complete the rest of the page pertaining to this organization as they see fit. If they provide quotes, then I'm all for it. I've never said otherwise. I add content, referenced, for that which I know to have been said by others. That is not in dispute. Likewise, if you provided some references, and the content was in any way related to the united synagogue, then it should stand.
Yet your ramble about 'Israel being the state of the Jewish people' is by no means an uncontested 'fact' as you have framed it (check out the Wikipedia page on that issues if you disagree and add your material there. I guarantee you it won't stand without a reference), so it has no place in this discussion. I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you. How can that be that I don't see Israel as 'my state', or 'a state for all Jews', or even, as the Zionists would have you believe, as a 'justifiable entity' IF it comes at the expense of the human rights and dignity of 4.5 million Palestinians. You do not speak for me, or many others, so don't pretend to. Add your references, fine, otherwise it's just 'opinion'. And, again, that is not what wikipedia is about.
And as for the rest of your context-free tidbits about 'Arab riots against Jews throughout the mid-twentieth century', then I think you'll need to be more specific before anyone can even engage with such a comment: might you mean the 1936 Arab uprising against British Mandate rule? Thought you might: try and be more specific if you can, it is the purpose of Wikipedia after all.
You want to talk about the two-state solution? Fantastic! Might I suggest that you get on the wiki page for that issues and give it a go. I'll be ready to read the constructive, referenced, material that you have to offer. I shan't hold my breath.
As for this 'gem', "And why not talk about that United Synagogue also supports the Israel that is the first country to send emergency crews to global disaster spots like Haiti and Nepal?" where to begin!? Enough already. Like seriously, did you really write that? And you're an admin?
Let me spell it out to you so that you understand your job as wikiAdmin. You're here to make sure that:
1) Original content added to page is referenced by reliable sources, and not subject to copyright. 2) Space is made for counter-criticism to be aired, if it exists. 3) It doesn't break any national laws.
Period.
In this context, for theUs.org.uk it means that
1) the reader of this page should be made aware of political stance that theUS.org.uk has regarding Israel (as the organization itself makes frequent and central reference to the State of Israel, this is not only justified but essential if the page is to have any credibility) 2) criticisms of this organization's stance regarding Israel should be listed, subject to references, as they are inherently controversial (this 'talk page' itself is proof of that) 3) counter-criticism should be allowed, IF and ONLY IF referenced.
You're assertion that 'balance' should exist is a oft' trotted-out and misunderstood one: the Nazi's do not #require# a page on Wikipedia to balance their morally reprehensible behavior before and during WW2. You're free to add 'balancing content' (if there exists any!) if you wish, but that does not mean that it 'must be present' for the entirely justifiable criticism of the Third-Reich to be copious, detailed and continuously refined as more come to light. This is the same situation we have here, in principle at least.
This is a very simple matter, that YOU are making an issue out of - criticisms of this organization do exist, made by respected organizations and individuals, so allow them to be documented. It is not your role to block content addition that is referenced. You can re-order it, request it be 'cleaned-up, but not block it out of some readily apparent ideological and political bias that you appear to have.
If you chose to hide these referenced criticisms then you're on your own 'mission'. And that is a problem for a wikiAdmin, don't you feel?
Internetwikier ( talk) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather curious, @Internetwikier wrote on April 17 under the Page Protection heading "I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli" yet on April 26 under the Same Address heading, he concedes "I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you". It would appear that @Internetwikier is dealing with bigger issues in his life than this discussion allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Mike Schwartz613: Good to see you engaging intellectually with the points being made Mike, the sure sign of a mammoth intellect and not a hasbara-robot-machine. How about you provide some references, eh? Secular Jewish is a perfectly acceptable place to be in 2015, I'll be fine. thanks for your concern. Internetwikier ( talk) 06:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see the US's support for Israel any more abhorrent than, for example, the Dalai Lama's support for an independent Tibet, or of the Pope taking a position opposing abortion." Please consider that there are different levels of support. For instance there can be support for the existence of a Jewish state in accordance with the prescription presented in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and there can be support for an Israel that permits and supports settlers and army infrastructures taking possession of large sections even of West Bank territories. A relevant content on the form and extent of the Zionism expressed by the United Synagogue should rightly be included in the article and, especially to extents that this goes beyond Free Tibet type arguments, this should be reported.
Suggest the editor focus on something else" but I am not sure whether this is a recommendation to leave this article entirely. Greg Kaye 13:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Why am I quibbling over minutiae with Internetwikier? Almost this entire article is copied from the United Synagogue website, and is a copyright violation.
I have deleted the sections that I found verbatim on the website. I am sure other sections are also violations, but I didn't have time to look carefully. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@
Ravpapa: Good idea to remove the copied content, that's not what wp is about after all.
Minutiae it most certainly isn't: factually accurate content, referenced, is to be allowed on here.
Internetwikier ( talk) 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article to remove copyright violations and vandalism. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You are not providing sources for your assertions and you are attempting to censor the edits that do have references. do not do this without providing references or I will involve admins.
Internetwikier (
talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Interwikier:: The material you have added to this page is synthesis, misleading, and constitutes vandalism. You cite as a source for your claim that "The organization has never shied away from taking positions on controversial political issues" a Telegraph article that does not mention United Synagogue. You quote a website called "PressTV" which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You cite a Jewish Chronicle article to support your statement that "The United Synagogue led its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants with this issue," but the article says no such thing.
I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing this article, if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Disputes over the reliability of sources can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all "state TV" stations are the same. Some, such as the BBC, just get arms-length funding from the government in return for providing public services. Others, such as Press TV and RT, toe the government line in order to spread propaganda. Sources in the latter group are generally not reliable sources. Well, perhaps Press TV is a reliable source for mundane events in Iran, but not for international relations, and certainly not for rants about "zionist pressure groups". bobrayner ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to post at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
On what basis is the source of footnote 7 , http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/contact , an unbiased , verifiable and reliable source of information fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Internetwikier ( talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I would ask you, and the rest of Wikipedia, to examine how you have unquestioningly given the Jewish Encyclopedia, a US run non-profit organization, a 'free pass' regarding its inclusion as a valid source (with no way to independently check sources, as MY professor has pointed out!) and yet drawn attention to the Iranian provenience of PressTV, eliciting a well documented form of latent racism/anti-Iranian sentiment common to American citizens and publications that implies some perceived anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli bias.
Ask yourself this: If PressTV were run by, say, Argentinian, Australian, or the American state would you still assert that it is an invalid source of news? Or what if we replace PressTV with MSNBC - would this still be a 'controversial' source of news, considering the very public predilection that the United Synagogue has to actively promote Israel at every opportunity? I think not.
It's no secret here that most Wiki editors on the English version are from a United States background and with that comes an almost unconscious bias against anything Iranian, for the most part. Israeli's are even more extreme in their anti-Iranian bias. This needs to be considered when attempting to slur news organizations with racist, nationalistic tropes. There is no documented anti-Jewish sentiment from Iran - quite the contrary in fact - with a long and positive cultural history of Jews co-existing peacefully in Iran for many hundreds of years. I think you need to examine closely your ideas of US News organization hegemony and accept that many other people and nations see things VERY differently to US/Western European vantage points. Wiki should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you a comedian? http://global100.adl.org/#country/iran - 56% anti-Semitism! What about Ahmadinejad? I'm sorry, but that "no documented anti-Jewish sentiment" thing is the funniest thing I've heard for years! As for Israelis, do you realize plenty of Israelis are Iranian immigrants! Are they biased against Iran? No, you'll find Iran is psychotically biased against Israel. BTW, you might want to click where it says "choose subject" and select the Holocaust - 30% heard of, 63% denial. Bellezzasolo ( talk) 12:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC
"The Anti-Defamation League commissioned First International Resources to research attitudes and opinions toward Jews in more than 100 countries around the world. Fieldwork and data collection for this global public opinion project were conducted and coordinated by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. All interviews were conducted between July 2013 and February 2014. The data is a result of 53,100 total interviews among citizens aged 18 and over, across 101 countries and the Palestinian Territories in the West Bank & Gaza. Expected margin of sampling error for the weighted global average is +/- 0.97%, for the countries/territories surveyed with n=500 interviews it is +/- 4.4% and for countries sampled with n=1,000 interviews it is +/- 3.2%. The margin of error is higher for sub-groups within each geography. Interviews were conducted via landline telephones, mobile phones and face-to-face discussions in 96 languages (including many dialects and pidgin/creole versions). All respondents were selected at random. Telephone respondents were selected using random-digit dial sampling; face-to-face respondents were selected using geographically stratified, randomly-selected sampling points in each country and at the household level, using a Kish grid." Does that sound unreliable to you? I do statistics by the way.
As for Israel supporting ADL, if it's true (which it may well be), does that make a survey on anti-Semitism automatically biased? Would the same be true if Pakistan funded an Islamophobia survey. Tiny sample sizes? You must be joking. -- Bellezzasolo ( talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote the section on support for Israel, and added a paragraph about organizations (two) that arose as counters to the pro-Israeli positions of the United Synagogue and other establishment Jewish organizations of Britain. I erred in the footnotes for this paragraph, and Dweller (correctly) deleted it as the footnote did not support the paragraph.
I have now put in the right footnotes. But I have no strong feelings about this paragraph, and if other editors think that controversy over the US's positions is inflated, I would be perfectly happy to remove it. If we remove it, I think we should just include the first paragraph in the section on Activities, and leave it at that.
Opinions invited. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Later: Dweller points out that neither of the references I gave cites US directly. There are references to the US on their websites, but I though that would be a bit over the edge. I now think that Dweller was right the first time, and we should just delete the paragraph. I await other opinions before proceeding. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I added links to Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council. I don't think that goes against the consensus above about support by the board for (the existence of) Israel (which I didn't mention). If I am wrong, please revert me and discuss. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81: @ GregKaye: You appear to have been most recently involved on this talk page. I see an IP user has requested assistance on most recent content removal, call unanswered. Can you assist? 82.97.37.7 ( talk) 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Hroðulf: Hi Hroðulf, appreciate your formatting corrections on the previous entry. User Internetwikier appears currently banned although I'm not sure this is forever - controversial as her (his?) edits are some of them do seem to highlight an apparent bias in wiki-contributors to this page. Are you perhaps willing to assist with the user request to arbitrate on the recent sourced content removal by previous 78.26 whose comment 'Quack' doesn't seem to be sufficient justification for content removal. If sourced I feel this material should appear in the article, although where about exactly is important too. Thoughts? 82.97.37.7 ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)