This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jewish Defense League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page. |
Two links from the NYPD SHIELD site:
161.185.151.193 ( talk) 02:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the picture of the anti-Arab graffiti. There is no way to know that this was the work of the JDL for sure. I hope everyone can see why this is against W:BLP policies. Thanks. BTW I have personally been threatened by a JDL member back in the 1970s. (details are at: Talk:Unification Church antisemitism controversy :-) ) Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that this article (like all on WP) is written to provide fair, neutral info and not to prejudice people against the JDL. ;-) However if I (who actually has some experience in writing ads, etc.) were going to write a negative article on the JDL I probably wouldn't have the first and one of the largest sections be titled "Anti-Soviet activities." Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this important enough so it should be in the intro? A lot of times answers to polls depend on how the question is asked so I don't think this data is very reliable. I would take it out altogether, but at least move it down the page. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been troubled by some of User:Eliscoming1234's recent edits to the opening of the article. I don't want to let it go too easily, because it seems that it could actually have real world implications, if we try to marginalize what the FBI indicates are the terrorist activities of this group. This is a pretty serious issue, and I seem only to be getting argument from Eliscoming that the group is different now, which is not something I care to dispute; it's only that if this group has been characterized as a terrorist group, and its members have been convicted of killing innocent people in the United States, this bears mentioning in the intro. I believe this edit should not have been undone, repeatedly, by Eliscoming. Any other opinions? DBaba ( talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The only reason this is 'controversial' is because of who is editing the articles. No one is defending Hamas terrorists on their Wiki-page. But predictably, Zionist Wiki-posters are defending the JDL because they are the JEWISH Defense League. No doubt, some of these people might even be members of the JDL or sympathetic to their politics and actions.
The bottom-line is that the JDL is a terrorist organization or at the very least, was a terrorist organization that was neutered and is now simply relegated to the barrel of to-the-right-of-Likud, hate-groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In that section, Irv Rubin was referred to as a spokesman of the JDL. I was under the impression that he was the leader of it at that time. Was he? If so, should it be changed? ObiBinks ( talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"The JDL was angry at music impresario Sol Hurok for bringing artists from the Soviet Union to the United States. In 1972, a bomb was planted in his Manhattan office, killing a secretary who happened to be Jewish." I don't think a group can feel an emotion such as anger, although of course its members can. Is there a way to express this better? Jaque Hammer ( talk) 08:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The sites at jdl.org and jewishdefenseleague.org have been taken down ; both links are dead. I tried to correct the page to indicate that both links were dead but the page was reverted. 99.98.1.31 ( talk) 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no proof this text was written by the JDL, or the JDL even had just something to dit with it. If it is not the work of the JDL it has nothing to do at the article of JDL. Everyone can write JDL on a wall with some racist texts above it. Probably the work of opponents of JDL. If you add it to the article like you want to do, the reader will see it as the work of the JDL. Which it most likely is not; i.e. there is no proof it is.
I can write some terrible racist stuff about black people on the wall and then sign it with "George W. Bush", make a pic of it and add it to the article about George W. Bush. That would, of course, not be accepted. Here happens the same. There is no proof at all that the JDL wrote this racist text, so one cannot link it to the JDL, neither in a quasi 'subtile' way. Istochleukzonnaam ( talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. DBaba ( talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's an improvement although I still fail to see the relevance here of including it.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian refers to someone "hanging a sign" that says "Gas the Arabs". They aren't referring to the image we've included. And while Reuters says that someone wrote that on a wall, it doesn't mention who wrote it or a JDL signature (so it is most likely a different image). It also doesn't say what language the graffiti is written in (and if it was done by Kahanist Israeli settlers, it would surely be written in Hebrew?). According to your logic, I could write "Gas the Protestants" on a wall in Belfast - and that image would belong on the IRA wikipedia page, because IRA members have killed Protestants in the past, and written similar examples of graffiti? The source for the caption clearly belongs on this page, but that doesn't mean we should include an unverified image. (BTW, when I said we've discussed this in the past, I mean we've had similar image disputes in different areas of wikipedia). Avaya1 ( talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks as though someone does not want this image exactly because it is most relevant, and TOO telling about JDF. Look at this link where a member of the Canadian "Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation" writes: "Neo-Nazi' hate graffiti by the Jewish Defense League is spray-painted in English in the cemetery: "Arabs to the Gas Chambers". (With "JDL" added.) Also images of the slogans: "Die Arab Sand-niggers", "Exterminate the muslims", "Watch out Fatima - we will rape Arab women" and finally this very: "Gas the Arabs".
Noone who is knowledgeable of the atmoshere among Israeli settlers in Hebron will be surprised. Their behaviour prompted even then Israeli prime minister Olmert to refer to a "pogrom" (See: "Olmert: I am shamed by Hebron settlers' pogrom" here). The chosen solution is excellent: include the image as an illustration of the atmoshere among the settlers in Hebron without claiming that it comes from the JDL as an organization. Paul K. ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Lacking time now, but I think this deserves to get a mention in the article: [8]; both the new linkage between the Canadian JDL faction and the EDL, as well as Farber's opinions on this "marriage". Whaledad ( talk) 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A piece in this article is misleading.
"On 25 February 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a "charter member" of the JDL, opened fire on Palestinian Muslims kneeling in prayer at mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29. On its website, the JDL writes "we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League." [37] It is also important to note that the JDL defends its stance by saying that "we feel that Goldstein took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. We do not consider his assault to qualify under the label of terrorism because Dr. Goldstein was a soldier in a war zone who was faced by an imminent terrorist threat.""
The problem here is that it paints a misleading picture of the JDLs statement on the killing. The full text from the JDL FAQ: "Dr. Goldstein was a brilliant surgeon, a mild-mannered Yeshiva-educated man who was promoted to the rank of major in the IDF. He was warned by his superiors in the military to prepare an open field hospital in anticipation of another murderous attack by the hostile Arab population of Hevron during the Jewish festival of Purim. Many of these Arabs were standing outside Goldstein's synagogue in the Cave of the Patriarchs and yelling "Slaughter the Jew." Goldstein had lost 30 close friends in the last few years; they were murdered by Arabs in the Hevron-Kiryat Arba area. One of those was the son of his best friend, Mordechai Lapid; as Goldstein rushed to give the young man medical aid, he was held back by the Arabs on the scene and the young man died. Additionally, as there is proof that the Arabs were hoarding food and supplies in response to a Muslim call for a massacre on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we feel that Goldstein took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. We do not consider his assault to qualify under the label of terrorism because Dr. Goldstein was a soldier in a war zone who was faced by an imminent terrorist threat. We teach that violence is never a good solution but is unfortunately sometimes necessary as a last resort when innocent lives are threatened; we therefore view Dr. Goldstein as a martyr in Judaism's protracted struggle against Arab terrorism. And we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League."
The section printed makes it appear as though the JDL sees the murders as just for no reason. The JDL defends its stance with much more information than that given in the article. With so much cut out, it gives a misleading presentation of the JDLs statements. More is needed for proper accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhoffer ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In the "Five Principles"-chapter, the principles "Dignity and Pride" and "Iron" have the same content...
DIGNITY AND PRIDE - the need to both move to help Jews everywhere and to change the Jewish image through sacrifice and all necessary means—even strength, force and violence.
IRON - the need to both move to help Jews everywhere and to change the Jewish image through sacrifice and all necessary means—even strength, force and violence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.223.138.147 (
talk)
11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A new removal spree fort his pic is taking place. With a new "argument": BLP (see discussion here). W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really buy this argument. The same can be said about almost any racist graffiti like this, "it says KKK but there's no evidence that it was the Klu Klux Klan that sprayed paint over the MLK sign", "it's a swastika on the side of a Synagoge but there is no evidence that it was done by the anti-semitic neo-nazi group that signed it" etc. Also, the caption didn't say that JDL members did it. It said "Graffiti left overnight on the door to the Abu Heikel home in Hebron". Racist Kahanist graffiti like this is commonplace in Hebron so I'm not sure that "totally undue" is really accurate. Every editor submitted photograph of a plant/animal species to illustrate an instance of that species is "non-notable". It's included as an example. Given JDL's record and reputation, which is extensively documented by reliable sources, I struggle to see what possible harm could come to their reputation as an organization by including one example of the many examples of this kind of graffiti in Hebron in their article. It's signed JDL. It may or may not be by a supporter of the JDL. People can decide for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest Whaledad sticks to one spot to have this discussion instead of picking out a reply he likes and sticking it on this page.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
REQUEST: Please stop editing my contributions on this talk page. There is nothing "good faith" about that. The heading is an accurate description of the picture in dispute. Actually, it is the only accurate description of said picture.
NOTICE: Any and every further attempt to change my contributions (including the header) will be reported as vandalism.
W\|/haledad (
Talk to me)
23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Strange comment. So far I have not made any revert with regard to this header, while user Kalsermar has, see here. Kalsermar knows quite well that tampering with someone`s edits is strictly forbidden. Paul K. ( talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note what I wrote above here: << It looks as though someone does not want this image exactly because it is most relevant, and TOO telling about JDF. Look at this link where a member of the Canadian "Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation" writes: "Neo-Nazi' hate graffiti by the Jewish Defense League is spray-painted in English in the cemetery: "Arabs to the Gas Chambers". (With "JDL" added.) Also images of the slogans: "Die Arab Sand-niggers", "Exterminate the muslims", "Watch out Fatima - we will rape Arab women" and finally this very: "Gas the Arabs". >> Paul K. ( talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This recent addition, supported by this external also needs removing imo - it seems to have been added in some way to support inclusion of the grafiti picture.. - it asserts in wikipedia's voice, as if fact that -
Who are these members? If it has so clearly been done by these members who are they? how is this fact known? You really can 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
How do we (the world) attribute terrorist activity to groups? When the terrorist group is Arabic, "we" accept a simple note, phone call or claim by the perpetrator (if caught alive) as proof of the fact that the act was committed by the group; this "evidence" then stands unless denied by the group, in which case sometimes there is a real investigation as to the ties between the act and the group. Well, in this case have a written note from the JDL that the act was committed by the JDL. The note is there for everybody to see. The JDL has not denied that this and similar graffiti that is plastered all over Hebron and other occupied areas, and even in school in Israel proper was left by JDL members and/or sympathizers. Another argument that is made over and over again (here, as far as I can see nowhere outside of Wikipedia) is that it is unlikely that this act was committed by a JDL member or sympathizer. Which is a very hypocritical statement, when knowing for an undisputed fact that not only did a high-ranking JDL member go on a terrorist shooting spree in a mosque filled with praying Muslims, but this inhuman act was actually defended by them. In short: we have a written statement from the JDL, that the act was committed by the JDL, the JDL hasn't denied the link to the act, the act fits with the known activities of the group. There is no secondary source denying linkage between the act and the JDL. This all is more than enough to place the picture in the article. W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Proposed resolution: Include both picturesInclude both pictures![]() ![]() W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Reply below. Use {{ CB-proposal}} to propose an alternate resolution for the discussion. See Wikipedia:Method for consensus building for help. |
whaledad, as to your point #3.... add the picture all you want to a general article concerning offensive graffiti, political violence or whatever.... just don't attribute it to a whole group without proper sourcing and consensus to do so. As for digging in heels, yes, that is what you seem to be doing. Had you accepted the non-controversial alternate image we would have been done weeks ago. You seem determined however to have this particular image on the article notwithstanding the fact that the info is already in the article in written form and there is an alternate image. -- Kalsermar ( talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Am I right in perceiving that only one editor is objecting to inclusion of the picture (indeed, perhaps more than one) while multiple editors are in favor of inclusion? If so, can someone please go ahead and add it per WP:CONSENSUS? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"JDL itself exists as a loosely affiliated network of thugs, zealots, and terrorists." — Greg Comlish Greg Comlish should be banned for his blatant anti-Semitic defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.204.37 ( talk) 07:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, just to make things easier for others to follow a recap. Feel free to add insights that I have not included.
The picture showing "Gas the Arabs" is in dispute here the Arabs painted in Hebron.jpg. There is no proof this particular graffiti was sprayed by a member of this group nor that this is a policy of the JDL. There is an alternate image available that shows graffiti with the JDL logo [27]. The fact that graffiti of this kind, purportedly from the JDL, is already mentioned in the article. At least 5 editors so far have voiced opposition to including the image.
Proponents of including the image state that it is not being stated that the JDL made the graffiti but merely that it is signed JDL. The frequent use of the image outside of Wikipedia makes it fit for inclusion. At least 4 editors are for inclusion of the image.
See this talkpage for all the minutae.
Is an image without solid sourcing acceptable or not? Should not the less controversial alternative be used? Opinions from outside editors would be appreciated.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Internet Archive, go. -- Niemti ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The existing content should be carefully moved into the main body, and the lead re-written as a proper summary of the whole article. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Niemti ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This group is categorized as a "Jewish-American gang" but while it sounds paramilitary, it doesn't sound like the group fits the description of a "gang". Thoughts? Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.jta.org/2011/04/15/news-opinion/united-states/fbi-jdl-extorted-rap-stars-including-tupac Extorting for protection money is gang activity. Early on they had also links to the Mafia. -- Niemti ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There were also many other money-related crimes. In one incident, a JDL member hijacked a tour helicopter and demanded ransom money to be delivered by a woman in bikini (I'm not making it up). -- Niemti ( talk) 11:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Jewish Defense League are heroes who stand up to anti-Semites, unlike the cowardly leftist self-haters who grovel to the Muslims and Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.101.64 ( talk) 08:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Re the recent IP edits, and in particular this lovely edit summary: "The whole purpose of the Jewish Defense League is to fight against anti-Semitism. Calling it racist makes no sense" -- dealing with anti-Semitism by acting in bigoted ways against non-Jews is hardly inconsistent with racism. I'll revert soon, but naturally if anyone has a sensible point to make… Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 13 external links on
Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the same article talks about JDL Canada, JDL France, etc, it is not correct to describe it as a US organization. If JDL France (LDJ) is an independent organization, this should be made clear, and the article should be split. -- Wiking ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems clear from the article itself as well as from the multitude of referenced RS that although the JDL was in one way or another responsible for many violent acts, and its offices were raided by the FBI, it was never, nonetheless, shut down or designated as a terrorist organization. Per Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America description, Articles placed in this category should also be in at least one category under Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. In this case, we do not have such a designator. -- Wiking ( talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
These reliable secondary sources can be cited in addition to the FBI source e.g. [29] [30] [31]. There are many more of course. Let secondary sources decide what is what and cite them. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole fucking report is about terrorism. Look at the title. The only reason the FBI has to discuss the JDL in that report is that the FBI thinks they're a bunch of terrorists. As for "logic", I suggest gaining familiarity with some. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What is happening here is that editors are violating mandatory policy by interpreting the language of a primary source to decide whether something is or is not the member of a set of things and then dismissing reliable secondary sources based on that interpretation. This kind of behavior falls outside of the constraints imposed by Wikipedia's rules. Editors can't engage in original research - no one even needs to read an editor's interpretation of a primary source, let alone respond to it. WP:PRIMARY is clear "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Secondary sources are allowed to interpret primary sources and it is their interpretations that have weight. Our interpretations have zero weight and are entirely irrelevant. There is no point even discussing what the primary source means. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Here are some reliable secondary sources whose statements can be incorporated into the article according to policy.
Here is an example of how the issue is handled in Homegrown Violent Extremism by Erroll Southers p.35-37 Remember, none of these sources can simply be dismissed based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of an FBI primary source. And of course there are many, many more sources that provide secondary source reporting of the past and the current state of affairs as well as an indication of whether something is undue. Things that are undue in Wikipedia terms will be absent from or rarely reported by the secondary source coverage of the topic. If there are reliable secondary sources that include a different and contrasting interpretation of the past and the current state of affairs, they should be included too. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In September of 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 6 was signed by President Bush. HSPD 6 directed the Attorney General of the United States to establish a process to consolidate the Government’s approach to terrorism screening and provide for the appropriate and lawful use of Terrorist Information in a screening process. The consolidated list is known as the Terrorist Screening Data Base, more often referred to as the “Watch List.” The so called Watch List is primarily used for alerting users to the possible encounters of suspected terrorists and for affecting domestic and international travel of suspected terrorists. A second list, which is a subset of the Watch List, is the Violent Gang/Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF). It was previously used to identify and track members of criminal gangs, but is now also being used to track foreign and domestic terrorists under investigation by the FBI and other designating agencies. Two additional lists of note are the publically available FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist and Domestic Terrorism lists. These lists are the only repositories for the FBI to externally publish or identify a domestic terror subject (after that person has been indicted) to law enforcement, selected communities of interest or the public. Both lists provide information concerning fugitives who have been criminally charged and are associated with terrorism or Domestic Terrorism, respectively. For example, FBI fugitive and animal rights extremist Daniel Andreas San Diego was recently added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list. However, these lists do not identify known or suspected domestic terror subjects or groups, regardless of their criminal history or current threat, unless or until they have been charged with a federal crime, unlike the criteria used to place groups on the FTO list.
It's apparent from the nature of the replies that finding consensus, where WP:CONSENSUS means a solution that falls within the constraints imposed policy, will probably not be possible with the current participants. The objective here should be to reflect the content of reliable sources, including conflicts between sources, without violating any policies. If that is not the objective, and it seems apparent that it is not, then there is no reason for me to participate here any longer. I'll make a couple of final comments though. There seem to be 2 issues a) ensuring that the article faithfully reflects the content of reliable sources, something that is currently not possible, and b) the categorization issue. The categorization issue seems bigger than this article and this group. There is an argument to be made that there is no "actual" US domestic terrorist list or at least that the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist is not publicly available. While it may be okay to have an article like Domestic terrorism in the United States it may not be okay to have a section in that article called Terrorist organizations or a category called Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America without relying on secondary sources and their descriptions of the status of US organizations and individuals. But I don't expect it to possible to resolve that wider issue through discussion here either. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently bulk of the article's content appears in the section titled "Terrorism and other illegal activities", in violation of WP:NPOV. The JDL is notable for a number of actions and events, many, but not all of which were violent, and the majority of which were neither linked to terrorism nor illegal. JDL activists participated in a great number of lawful demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience, covered by major media outlets. I propose removing this title and breaking up the section by period of activity, with each subsection proportional in size to the amount of news coverage that the JDL received during the corresponding period. -- Wiking ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm too new to editing in Wikipedia (as in never) so I declined to try putting my suggested into practice. Instead I thought I'd raise the issue and get a response from those who have been doing this a while.
Reading this, I noticed the JDL was considered "Right Wing" but I think in today's world it is the "Left Wing" doing the opposing of antisemitism and racism and opposing the russian influence.
That's my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirefighterGeek ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening sentence, "whatever means necessary" should link to the article By any means necessary for context on the subtext and history behind this phrase. 50.81.227.4 ( talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
https://forward.com/fast-forward/390450/jewish-defense-league-white-supremacists-booted-off-twitter/
Should be included in the Article. No mention of "Twitter" at all. Tym Whittier ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I was reading the article The Woman on the Bridge. It details the suicide of Gloria Jean D’Argenios (a.k.a. Estelle Evans), who committed suicide after Meir Kahane (a.k.a. Michael King) broke-off an affair with her.
King/Kahane said he setup a memorial foundation in her name after she died, but it was used to funnel money to the Jewish Defense Fund:
[After her death] ... he set up a memorial foundation in her name, which was a Trojan horse to raise money for the organization that became the Jewish Defense League.
And:
All his underlying hatred for others seeded the origin for the JDL in the spring of 1968. “We have no great funds, no great influence, so the answer is simple: to do outrageous things,” he told New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman in January 1971. Money had to be raised, though, and it required setting up charitable, tax-exempt foundations. One of them, incorporated in August 1967, a full six months before the official existence of the JDL, bore the name of Estelle Donna Evans.
Finally:
When [New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman] Kaufman asked Kahane about the foundation’s namesake, the rabbi claimed she had been his former secretary in his failed consulting operation, she had died of terminal cancer, and her “well-to-do” family had endowed the foundation.
I believe that is text book money laundering.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
hi Nableezy I have indeed read the article. You reverted my deletion of the category: anti-islam sentiment, but didn't address the problem: namely that per the category's own description, we are not supposed to file people, groups or institutions under it. So, I would like to ask you to self-revert or otherwise we could start addressing the actual problem here: that the RFC from 2011 I linked in my edit doesn’t reflect Wikipedia consensus anymore. What would you like? (related discussion: Talk:Project_Veritas#Category:_anti-islam_sentiment) Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 14:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the group is designated “inactive” by many lists, but this isn’t expanded on in the body at all, and it doesn’t appear to be supported by the source. Can anyone clarify? — HTGS ( talk) 05:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A major leader of the Jewish Defense League in Israel (Itamar Ben Gvir) was elected to the Knesset yesterday in a party that will be the second largest in Netanyahu's future coalition. Worth updating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.1.159.151 ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
__________ In the introduction, please change:
"The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a far-right religious and political organization in the United States and Canada."
to:
"The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a far-right religious and political organization in the United States and Canada founded in 1968"
while the founding date is listed elsewhere, that date should be in the introduction-- mainly, because now it sounds now like it was founded in the 2000s, given the reference to when JDL was listed on the FBI terrorism watch list. The intro should clearly indicate how long the organization has existed.
Thank you. 71.167.251.99 ( talk) 18:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jewish Defense League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page. |
Two links from the NYPD SHIELD site:
161.185.151.193 ( talk) 02:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the picture of the anti-Arab graffiti. There is no way to know that this was the work of the JDL for sure. I hope everyone can see why this is against W:BLP policies. Thanks. BTW I have personally been threatened by a JDL member back in the 1970s. (details are at: Talk:Unification Church antisemitism controversy :-) ) Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that this article (like all on WP) is written to provide fair, neutral info and not to prejudice people against the JDL. ;-) However if I (who actually has some experience in writing ads, etc.) were going to write a negative article on the JDL I probably wouldn't have the first and one of the largest sections be titled "Anti-Soviet activities." Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this important enough so it should be in the intro? A lot of times answers to polls depend on how the question is asked so I don't think this data is very reliable. I would take it out altogether, but at least move it down the page. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been troubled by some of User:Eliscoming1234's recent edits to the opening of the article. I don't want to let it go too easily, because it seems that it could actually have real world implications, if we try to marginalize what the FBI indicates are the terrorist activities of this group. This is a pretty serious issue, and I seem only to be getting argument from Eliscoming that the group is different now, which is not something I care to dispute; it's only that if this group has been characterized as a terrorist group, and its members have been convicted of killing innocent people in the United States, this bears mentioning in the intro. I believe this edit should not have been undone, repeatedly, by Eliscoming. Any other opinions? DBaba ( talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The only reason this is 'controversial' is because of who is editing the articles. No one is defending Hamas terrorists on their Wiki-page. But predictably, Zionist Wiki-posters are defending the JDL because they are the JEWISH Defense League. No doubt, some of these people might even be members of the JDL or sympathetic to their politics and actions.
The bottom-line is that the JDL is a terrorist organization or at the very least, was a terrorist organization that was neutered and is now simply relegated to the barrel of to-the-right-of-Likud, hate-groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 ( talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In that section, Irv Rubin was referred to as a spokesman of the JDL. I was under the impression that he was the leader of it at that time. Was he? If so, should it be changed? ObiBinks ( talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"The JDL was angry at music impresario Sol Hurok for bringing artists from the Soviet Union to the United States. In 1972, a bomb was planted in his Manhattan office, killing a secretary who happened to be Jewish." I don't think a group can feel an emotion such as anger, although of course its members can. Is there a way to express this better? Jaque Hammer ( talk) 08:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The sites at jdl.org and jewishdefenseleague.org have been taken down ; both links are dead. I tried to correct the page to indicate that both links were dead but the page was reverted. 99.98.1.31 ( talk) 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no proof this text was written by the JDL, or the JDL even had just something to dit with it. If it is not the work of the JDL it has nothing to do at the article of JDL. Everyone can write JDL on a wall with some racist texts above it. Probably the work of opponents of JDL. If you add it to the article like you want to do, the reader will see it as the work of the JDL. Which it most likely is not; i.e. there is no proof it is.
I can write some terrible racist stuff about black people on the wall and then sign it with "George W. Bush", make a pic of it and add it to the article about George W. Bush. That would, of course, not be accepted. Here happens the same. There is no proof at all that the JDL wrote this racist text, so one cannot link it to the JDL, neither in a quasi 'subtile' way. Istochleukzonnaam ( talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. DBaba ( talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's an improvement although I still fail to see the relevance here of including it.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian refers to someone "hanging a sign" that says "Gas the Arabs". They aren't referring to the image we've included. And while Reuters says that someone wrote that on a wall, it doesn't mention who wrote it or a JDL signature (so it is most likely a different image). It also doesn't say what language the graffiti is written in (and if it was done by Kahanist Israeli settlers, it would surely be written in Hebrew?). According to your logic, I could write "Gas the Protestants" on a wall in Belfast - and that image would belong on the IRA wikipedia page, because IRA members have killed Protestants in the past, and written similar examples of graffiti? The source for the caption clearly belongs on this page, but that doesn't mean we should include an unverified image. (BTW, when I said we've discussed this in the past, I mean we've had similar image disputes in different areas of wikipedia). Avaya1 ( talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks as though someone does not want this image exactly because it is most relevant, and TOO telling about JDF. Look at this link where a member of the Canadian "Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation" writes: "Neo-Nazi' hate graffiti by the Jewish Defense League is spray-painted in English in the cemetery: "Arabs to the Gas Chambers". (With "JDL" added.) Also images of the slogans: "Die Arab Sand-niggers", "Exterminate the muslims", "Watch out Fatima - we will rape Arab women" and finally this very: "Gas the Arabs".
Noone who is knowledgeable of the atmoshere among Israeli settlers in Hebron will be surprised. Their behaviour prompted even then Israeli prime minister Olmert to refer to a "pogrom" (See: "Olmert: I am shamed by Hebron settlers' pogrom" here). The chosen solution is excellent: include the image as an illustration of the atmoshere among the settlers in Hebron without claiming that it comes from the JDL as an organization. Paul K. ( talk) 16:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Lacking time now, but I think this deserves to get a mention in the article: [8]; both the new linkage between the Canadian JDL faction and the EDL, as well as Farber's opinions on this "marriage". Whaledad ( talk) 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A piece in this article is misleading.
"On 25 February 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a "charter member" of the JDL, opened fire on Palestinian Muslims kneeling in prayer at mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29. On its website, the JDL writes "we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League." [37] It is also important to note that the JDL defends its stance by saying that "we feel that Goldstein took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. We do not consider his assault to qualify under the label of terrorism because Dr. Goldstein was a soldier in a war zone who was faced by an imminent terrorist threat.""
The problem here is that it paints a misleading picture of the JDLs statement on the killing. The full text from the JDL FAQ: "Dr. Goldstein was a brilliant surgeon, a mild-mannered Yeshiva-educated man who was promoted to the rank of major in the IDF. He was warned by his superiors in the military to prepare an open field hospital in anticipation of another murderous attack by the hostile Arab population of Hevron during the Jewish festival of Purim. Many of these Arabs were standing outside Goldstein's synagogue in the Cave of the Patriarchs and yelling "Slaughter the Jew." Goldstein had lost 30 close friends in the last few years; they were murdered by Arabs in the Hevron-Kiryat Arba area. One of those was the son of his best friend, Mordechai Lapid; as Goldstein rushed to give the young man medical aid, he was held back by the Arabs on the scene and the young man died. Additionally, as there is proof that the Arabs were hoarding food and supplies in response to a Muslim call for a massacre on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we feel that Goldstein took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. We do not consider his assault to qualify under the label of terrorism because Dr. Goldstein was a soldier in a war zone who was faced by an imminent terrorist threat. We teach that violence is never a good solution but is unfortunately sometimes necessary as a last resort when innocent lives are threatened; we therefore view Dr. Goldstein as a martyr in Judaism's protracted struggle against Arab terrorism. And we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League."
The section printed makes it appear as though the JDL sees the murders as just for no reason. The JDL defends its stance with much more information than that given in the article. With so much cut out, it gives a misleading presentation of the JDLs statements. More is needed for proper accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhoffer ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In the "Five Principles"-chapter, the principles "Dignity and Pride" and "Iron" have the same content...
DIGNITY AND PRIDE - the need to both move to help Jews everywhere and to change the Jewish image through sacrifice and all necessary means—even strength, force and violence.
IRON - the need to both move to help Jews everywhere and to change the Jewish image through sacrifice and all necessary means—even strength, force and violence. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.223.138.147 (
talk)
11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A new removal spree fort his pic is taking place. With a new "argument": BLP (see discussion here). W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really buy this argument. The same can be said about almost any racist graffiti like this, "it says KKK but there's no evidence that it was the Klu Klux Klan that sprayed paint over the MLK sign", "it's a swastika on the side of a Synagoge but there is no evidence that it was done by the anti-semitic neo-nazi group that signed it" etc. Also, the caption didn't say that JDL members did it. It said "Graffiti left overnight on the door to the Abu Heikel home in Hebron". Racist Kahanist graffiti like this is commonplace in Hebron so I'm not sure that "totally undue" is really accurate. Every editor submitted photograph of a plant/animal species to illustrate an instance of that species is "non-notable". It's included as an example. Given JDL's record and reputation, which is extensively documented by reliable sources, I struggle to see what possible harm could come to their reputation as an organization by including one example of the many examples of this kind of graffiti in Hebron in their article. It's signed JDL. It may or may not be by a supporter of the JDL. People can decide for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest Whaledad sticks to one spot to have this discussion instead of picking out a reply he likes and sticking it on this page.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
REQUEST: Please stop editing my contributions on this talk page. There is nothing "good faith" about that. The heading is an accurate description of the picture in dispute. Actually, it is the only accurate description of said picture.
NOTICE: Any and every further attempt to change my contributions (including the header) will be reported as vandalism.
W\|/haledad (
Talk to me)
23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Strange comment. So far I have not made any revert with regard to this header, while user Kalsermar has, see here. Kalsermar knows quite well that tampering with someone`s edits is strictly forbidden. Paul K. ( talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note what I wrote above here: << It looks as though someone does not want this image exactly because it is most relevant, and TOO telling about JDF. Look at this link where a member of the Canadian "Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation" writes: "Neo-Nazi' hate graffiti by the Jewish Defense League is spray-painted in English in the cemetery: "Arabs to the Gas Chambers". (With "JDL" added.) Also images of the slogans: "Die Arab Sand-niggers", "Exterminate the muslims", "Watch out Fatima - we will rape Arab women" and finally this very: "Gas the Arabs". >> Paul K. ( talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This recent addition, supported by this external also needs removing imo - it seems to have been added in some way to support inclusion of the grafiti picture.. - it asserts in wikipedia's voice, as if fact that -
Who are these members? If it has so clearly been done by these members who are they? how is this fact known? You really can 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
How do we (the world) attribute terrorist activity to groups? When the terrorist group is Arabic, "we" accept a simple note, phone call or claim by the perpetrator (if caught alive) as proof of the fact that the act was committed by the group; this "evidence" then stands unless denied by the group, in which case sometimes there is a real investigation as to the ties between the act and the group. Well, in this case have a written note from the JDL that the act was committed by the JDL. The note is there for everybody to see. The JDL has not denied that this and similar graffiti that is plastered all over Hebron and other occupied areas, and even in school in Israel proper was left by JDL members and/or sympathizers. Another argument that is made over and over again (here, as far as I can see nowhere outside of Wikipedia) is that it is unlikely that this act was committed by a JDL member or sympathizer. Which is a very hypocritical statement, when knowing for an undisputed fact that not only did a high-ranking JDL member go on a terrorist shooting spree in a mosque filled with praying Muslims, but this inhuman act was actually defended by them. In short: we have a written statement from the JDL, that the act was committed by the JDL, the JDL hasn't denied the link to the act, the act fits with the known activities of the group. There is no secondary source denying linkage between the act and the JDL. This all is more than enough to place the picture in the article. W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Proposed resolution: Include both picturesInclude both pictures![]() ![]() W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Reply below. Use {{ CB-proposal}} to propose an alternate resolution for the discussion. See Wikipedia:Method for consensus building for help. |
whaledad, as to your point #3.... add the picture all you want to a general article concerning offensive graffiti, political violence or whatever.... just don't attribute it to a whole group without proper sourcing and consensus to do so. As for digging in heels, yes, that is what you seem to be doing. Had you accepted the non-controversial alternate image we would have been done weeks ago. You seem determined however to have this particular image on the article notwithstanding the fact that the info is already in the article in written form and there is an alternate image. -- Kalsermar ( talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Am I right in perceiving that only one editor is objecting to inclusion of the picture (indeed, perhaps more than one) while multiple editors are in favor of inclusion? If so, can someone please go ahead and add it per WP:CONSENSUS? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"JDL itself exists as a loosely affiliated network of thugs, zealots, and terrorists." — Greg Comlish Greg Comlish should be banned for his blatant anti-Semitic defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.204.37 ( talk) 07:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, just to make things easier for others to follow a recap. Feel free to add insights that I have not included.
The picture showing "Gas the Arabs" is in dispute here the Arabs painted in Hebron.jpg. There is no proof this particular graffiti was sprayed by a member of this group nor that this is a policy of the JDL. There is an alternate image available that shows graffiti with the JDL logo [27]. The fact that graffiti of this kind, purportedly from the JDL, is already mentioned in the article. At least 5 editors so far have voiced opposition to including the image.
Proponents of including the image state that it is not being stated that the JDL made the graffiti but merely that it is signed JDL. The frequent use of the image outside of Wikipedia makes it fit for inclusion. At least 4 editors are for inclusion of the image.
See this talkpage for all the minutae.
Is an image without solid sourcing acceptable or not? Should not the less controversial alternative be used? Opinions from outside editors would be appreciated.-- Kalsermar ( talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Internet Archive, go. -- Niemti ( talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The existing content should be carefully moved into the main body, and the lead re-written as a proper summary of the whole article. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Niemti ( talk) 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This group is categorized as a "Jewish-American gang" but while it sounds paramilitary, it doesn't sound like the group fits the description of a "gang". Thoughts? Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.jta.org/2011/04/15/news-opinion/united-states/fbi-jdl-extorted-rap-stars-including-tupac Extorting for protection money is gang activity. Early on they had also links to the Mafia. -- Niemti ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There were also many other money-related crimes. In one incident, a JDL member hijacked a tour helicopter and demanded ransom money to be delivered by a woman in bikini (I'm not making it up). -- Niemti ( talk) 11:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Jewish Defense League are heroes who stand up to anti-Semites, unlike the cowardly leftist self-haters who grovel to the Muslims and Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.101.64 ( talk) 08:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Re the recent IP edits, and in particular this lovely edit summary: "The whole purpose of the Jewish Defense League is to fight against anti-Semitism. Calling it racist makes no sense" -- dealing with anti-Semitism by acting in bigoted ways against non-Jews is hardly inconsistent with racism. I'll revert soon, but naturally if anyone has a sensible point to make… Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 13 external links on
Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the same article talks about JDL Canada, JDL France, etc, it is not correct to describe it as a US organization. If JDL France (LDJ) is an independent organization, this should be made clear, and the article should be split. -- Wiking ( talk) 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems clear from the article itself as well as from the multitude of referenced RS that although the JDL was in one way or another responsible for many violent acts, and its offices were raided by the FBI, it was never, nonetheless, shut down or designated as a terrorist organization. Per Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America description, Articles placed in this category should also be in at least one category under Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. In this case, we do not have such a designator. -- Wiking ( talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
These reliable secondary sources can be cited in addition to the FBI source e.g. [29] [30] [31]. There are many more of course. Let secondary sources decide what is what and cite them. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole fucking report is about terrorism. Look at the title. The only reason the FBI has to discuss the JDL in that report is that the FBI thinks they're a bunch of terrorists. As for "logic", I suggest gaining familiarity with some. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What is happening here is that editors are violating mandatory policy by interpreting the language of a primary source to decide whether something is or is not the member of a set of things and then dismissing reliable secondary sources based on that interpretation. This kind of behavior falls outside of the constraints imposed by Wikipedia's rules. Editors can't engage in original research - no one even needs to read an editor's interpretation of a primary source, let alone respond to it. WP:PRIMARY is clear "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Secondary sources are allowed to interpret primary sources and it is their interpretations that have weight. Our interpretations have zero weight and are entirely irrelevant. There is no point even discussing what the primary source means. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Here are some reliable secondary sources whose statements can be incorporated into the article according to policy.
Here is an example of how the issue is handled in Homegrown Violent Extremism by Erroll Southers p.35-37 Remember, none of these sources can simply be dismissed based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of an FBI primary source. And of course there are many, many more sources that provide secondary source reporting of the past and the current state of affairs as well as an indication of whether something is undue. Things that are undue in Wikipedia terms will be absent from or rarely reported by the secondary source coverage of the topic. If there are reliable secondary sources that include a different and contrasting interpretation of the past and the current state of affairs, they should be included too. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In September of 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 6 was signed by President Bush. HSPD 6 directed the Attorney General of the United States to establish a process to consolidate the Government’s approach to terrorism screening and provide for the appropriate and lawful use of Terrorist Information in a screening process. The consolidated list is known as the Terrorist Screening Data Base, more often referred to as the “Watch List.” The so called Watch List is primarily used for alerting users to the possible encounters of suspected terrorists and for affecting domestic and international travel of suspected terrorists. A second list, which is a subset of the Watch List, is the Violent Gang/Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF). It was previously used to identify and track members of criminal gangs, but is now also being used to track foreign and domestic terrorists under investigation by the FBI and other designating agencies. Two additional lists of note are the publically available FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist and Domestic Terrorism lists. These lists are the only repositories for the FBI to externally publish or identify a domestic terror subject (after that person has been indicted) to law enforcement, selected communities of interest or the public. Both lists provide information concerning fugitives who have been criminally charged and are associated with terrorism or Domestic Terrorism, respectively. For example, FBI fugitive and animal rights extremist Daniel Andreas San Diego was recently added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list. However, these lists do not identify known or suspected domestic terror subjects or groups, regardless of their criminal history or current threat, unless or until they have been charged with a federal crime, unlike the criteria used to place groups on the FTO list.
It's apparent from the nature of the replies that finding consensus, where WP:CONSENSUS means a solution that falls within the constraints imposed policy, will probably not be possible with the current participants. The objective here should be to reflect the content of reliable sources, including conflicts between sources, without violating any policies. If that is not the objective, and it seems apparent that it is not, then there is no reason for me to participate here any longer. I'll make a couple of final comments though. There seem to be 2 issues a) ensuring that the article faithfully reflects the content of reliable sources, something that is currently not possible, and b) the categorization issue. The categorization issue seems bigger than this article and this group. There is an argument to be made that there is no "actual" US domestic terrorist list or at least that the consolidated Terrorist Watchlist is not publicly available. While it may be okay to have an article like Domestic terrorism in the United States it may not be okay to have a section in that article called Terrorist organizations or a category called Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America without relying on secondary sources and their descriptions of the status of US organizations and individuals. But I don't expect it to possible to resolve that wider issue through discussion here either. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently bulk of the article's content appears in the section titled "Terrorism and other illegal activities", in violation of WP:NPOV. The JDL is notable for a number of actions and events, many, but not all of which were violent, and the majority of which were neither linked to terrorism nor illegal. JDL activists participated in a great number of lawful demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience, covered by major media outlets. I propose removing this title and breaking up the section by period of activity, with each subsection proportional in size to the amount of news coverage that the JDL received during the corresponding period. -- Wiking ( talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm too new to editing in Wikipedia (as in never) so I declined to try putting my suggested into practice. Instead I thought I'd raise the issue and get a response from those who have been doing this a while.
Reading this, I noticed the JDL was considered "Right Wing" but I think in today's world it is the "Left Wing" doing the opposing of antisemitism and racism and opposing the russian influence.
That's my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirefighterGeek ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish Defense League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening sentence, "whatever means necessary" should link to the article By any means necessary for context on the subtext and history behind this phrase. 50.81.227.4 ( talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
https://forward.com/fast-forward/390450/jewish-defense-league-white-supremacists-booted-off-twitter/
Should be included in the Article. No mention of "Twitter" at all. Tym Whittier ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I was reading the article The Woman on the Bridge. It details the suicide of Gloria Jean D’Argenios (a.k.a. Estelle Evans), who committed suicide after Meir Kahane (a.k.a. Michael King) broke-off an affair with her.
King/Kahane said he setup a memorial foundation in her name after she died, but it was used to funnel money to the Jewish Defense Fund:
[After her death] ... he set up a memorial foundation in her name, which was a Trojan horse to raise money for the organization that became the Jewish Defense League.
And:
All his underlying hatred for others seeded the origin for the JDL in the spring of 1968. “We have no great funds, no great influence, so the answer is simple: to do outrageous things,” he told New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman in January 1971. Money had to be raised, though, and it required setting up charitable, tax-exempt foundations. One of them, incorporated in August 1967, a full six months before the official existence of the JDL, bore the name of Estelle Donna Evans.
Finally:
When [New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman] Kaufman asked Kahane about the foundation’s namesake, the rabbi claimed she had been his former secretary in his failed consulting operation, she had died of terminal cancer, and her “well-to-do” family had endowed the foundation.
I believe that is text book money laundering.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
hi Nableezy I have indeed read the article. You reverted my deletion of the category: anti-islam sentiment, but didn't address the problem: namely that per the category's own description, we are not supposed to file people, groups or institutions under it. So, I would like to ask you to self-revert or otherwise we could start addressing the actual problem here: that the RFC from 2011 I linked in my edit doesn’t reflect Wikipedia consensus anymore. What would you like? (related discussion: Talk:Project_Veritas#Category:_anti-islam_sentiment) Best, Mvbaron ( talk) 14:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
According to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, the group is designated “inactive” by many lists, but this isn’t expanded on in the body at all, and it doesn’t appear to be supported by the source. Can anyone clarify? — HTGS ( talk) 05:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
A major leader of the Jewish Defense League in Israel (Itamar Ben Gvir) was elected to the Knesset yesterday in a party that will be the second largest in Netanyahu's future coalition. Worth updating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.1.159.151 ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
__________ In the introduction, please change:
"The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a far-right religious and political organization in the United States and Canada."
to:
"The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a far-right religious and political organization in the United States and Canada founded in 1968"
while the founding date is listed elsewhere, that date should be in the introduction-- mainly, because now it sounds now like it was founded in the 2000s, given the reference to when JDL was listed on the FBI terrorism watch list. The intro should clearly indicate how long the organization has existed.
Thank you. 71.167.251.99 ( talk) 18:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)