Talk:Jewish Defense League

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

FYI

Two links from the NYPD SHIELD site:

• Global Terrorism Database

• Terrorist Organization Profile

161.185.151.193 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

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)

"Anti-Soviet"

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)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the "Anti-Soviet activities" section is not NPOV because it's too favorable?   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... It cuts both ways. Fans of the Soviet Union might like that title being prominent since most (almost all) people reading info on the JDl will think it's a bad group...AND...at least the suggestion will be made that being "anti-Soviet" is also bad. On the other hand fans of the JDL might like it as well since being anti-Soviet is considered by many people to be a good thing and provides the JDL with some justification for their extreme acts. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem that needs to be fixed? If so, what solution do you propose?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Reading the article more closely it doesn't seem to be such a problem, since that was a big part of their early focus it seems. However the word "Anti-Soviet" has the feel of something only a true-believing communist would say, but I can't think of a better expression. "Opposition to Soviet policies" might be an improvement. I don't think there is any evidence that they intended to bring the Soviet Union down. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll change the section title and see if people like it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Polling data

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)

Terrorism and the JDL

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)

I'll make a deal. Mention the info here, and then you can write that the JDL was once called the "one of the most active terrorist groups..." (roughly), but I am pretty sure it was by a person from the US Agriculture Department. Look into please. I hope this is a good compromise. Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was careful in my original edit to include precisely that JDL claim, i.e., While the group asserts that it "unequivocally condemns terrorism". These are the basics of the group's background which must be included in the intro. Is there a better way to cite this info, is this what you are suggesting? DBaba (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to check in again... I saw a recent edit calling this a "radical terrorist" organization rolled back, and I thought I detected a bit of a double standard, as covering up the alleged terrorist affiliation of this group seems not to evoke so immediate a response. I believe the opening was POV, because it advances the claims of the group as truth rather than as claims, whereas the FBI's view (radical terrorist group) is posited as the view of the FBI. Each should be presented as a view, rather than the JDL view as legitimate and its critics' as illegitimate.

I fail to see how he is pushing the group's claims as truth. It seems like he is very objectively telling both sides of the story. He simply states the goals and views of the JDL, and he does the same thing with the FBI. I think that perhaps you are just biased against the JDL because it is to my understanding that the alleged terrorist affiliation (at least nowadays) is just that - alleged. [(User:kazizzle)]

The problem is, there isnt always two sides to an argument or there isnt always two viewpoints. Say for instance that the FBI declares the IRA are a terrorist organisation. The FBI are a good authority on this and their view should be taken as definitive. But the IRA release a statement claiming they arent a Terrorist organisation and are against it. By your logic we cant refer to them as terrorists without telling "Both Sides" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.80.216 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a little scary to me, to have this group which seems to have killed many innocent people presented as having a "no tolerance" policy in regards to terrorism, when its leaders have historically rejoiced in the murder of innocent people as long as they were of Arab heritage. Any other opinions? DBaba (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a really touchy issue for sure. The JDL never really claims responsibility for many of the murders I think you're talking about. There are supposedly many affiliations between the attacks and the JDL but no concrete proof, but yes they do often condone horrible acts. I don't think that it is necessarily that they are of Arab heritage though. I think instead it may be more like they say on their website - that they only attack to defend themselves. I certainly do think that they have been attacked, but their retaliation is often over the top. Kazizzle (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Relationship with Death Row Records section

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)

Problem sentences

"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)

I'll see what I can do. Wolfview (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

JDL website is a dead link

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)

Website go down and are restored unpredictably. The site's old pages are available through the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.jdl.org.   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The JDL Website, www.jdl.org, is unexpectadly down since several days ago. The website should be restored shortly.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pic Signed With JDL

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. SwedishSven (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)