Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 21 April 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Accusations of pro-Israel bias"

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)

Page protection

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages.

Kind regards

I.W

_________

A review of Internetwikier's user page indicates previous violations of Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy, most recently on December 2, 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} 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

Protected edit (removal) request on 18 April 2015

This edit request 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages.

Many thanks, I.W. Internetwikier (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:01, 20 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 _____

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 April 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/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: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:01, 20 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re recent edit war

If you check the history of this article, you can see the following:

1. A large amount of information about a controversy was added
2. Balancing material refuting the controversy was added
3. Editors have been disagreeing about whether the whole section or none of it should be included

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.

Please make your arguments based on Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines.

Please be brief if you want to sway opinions (no-one likes to read walls of text).

Please keep the discussion civil and avoid attacking other editors

Thank you --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the additional material be included in the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and !voting

• Included My personal thought on it is that since the information to be added is balanced and would be an overall improvement to the encyclopedia, it should be added — {{U|Technical 13}} 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Reject My objections to the changes recommended by another editor stem from several points.

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)

• Include

Dear Dweller,

I appreciate your time, please see my response below:

1. A large amount of information about a controversy was added

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.

1. Balancing material refuting the controversy was added:

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.

1. Editors have been disagreeing about whether the whole section or none of it should be included:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

I'm not sure what your last sentence means. The purpose of this discussion is to decide whether to include or reject some text from a Misplaced Pages article. There's no "censorship" at play here. Misplaced Pages is not censored. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 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)

@StevenJ81:. Sure. Take a look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Will think on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:50, 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)

Agree with previous editor. 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. In my view, the deleted material spent much more time talking about (and critiquing) the pro-Israel material that the US was said to promote than was spent on the fact that the US promotes it. But the subject of this article is the US, not the material.

I fully appreciate that this encyclopedia is WP:NOT PAPER. So we have more room to do whatever we want here. At the same time, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So I think to myself, "Would Britannica go on at this length on this topic in this article?" And I come to a clear "no" on this. I can't really imagine any paper encyclopedia giving more on this than something to the effect of:

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).

and having one–only one–article covering that topic.

If there is something unique and specific to the United Synagogue's pro-Israel advocacy, then it belongs here if supported with reliable sources. If not, this is not the location for broad coverage of pro-Israel advocacy. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages'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: https://en.wikipedia.org/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.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Independent_Jewish_Voices ).

I , and the rest of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Misplaced Pages 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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles
• Start-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment