Jump to content

Talk:Jewish Defense League

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.223.138.147 (talk) at 11:03, 20 December 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

FYI

Two links from the NYPD SHIELD site:

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is correct he was the Chairman at that time, not just a spokesman for the organization. Please make the change. Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The website is back up.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Istochleukzonnaam (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It is quite absurd that this picture is used.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user (/, a.k.a. and many others) has been blocked in Wikis around the globe for cross-Wiki vandalism and sock puppetry: [1], [2] -- Whaledad (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O boy, here we go again. I do have to reply with the obligatory whine along the lines of he did it now I can do it too! Let me just point out that Whaledad is on a cross wiki effort to have anyone who disagrees with him blocked and even has a block request against me pending because of my removal of the offending picture yesterday. It would be quite amusing if it weren't so tragic. Note how the sole point made here by Whaledad is a spurious attack on his opponent in this case, namely SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam/Knowalles. The fact that this user has been blocked (rightly or wrongly) has nothing whatsoever to do with the ediotorial issue at hand here and has the sole purpose of diminishing his opponent in the eyes of others. A reply from Whaledad c.s. that has any relation to the content of the article or the arguments made by those who oppose the inclusion of this picture here, however small it may be, has yet to be seen.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pic with different caption

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)[reply]

You can't make an image relevant by adding a sourced caption to it. The sourced caption is relevant, but the image is not. If there's no evidence that this particular image was written by this particular organisation, then it doesn't belong on their wikipedia article. We've had these discussions many times before, and this is always the conclusion. This is an encylopedia, so we try to avoid including unverified sources, especially if it's a controversial topic Avaya1 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not "unverified". You can read about it in The Guardian[3] or Reuters[4]. You can view it with an opinion piece here. It appears in the book Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories on page 279. The blanked text links such graffiti to Kahane's movement in Hebron, which is at issue on this page. So we have a much-verified photograph reflecting Kahanist terror in Hebron: a phenomenon for which the JDL is duly famous. Does this not substantiate its presence on the page, under the subheading 'Terrorism'?
Also, it does not matter who is calling for the Arabs to be killed in the Kahanist graffiti. A notorious JDL-approved massacre occurred in Hebron, and the JDL continues to actively defend the killings; such graffiti is relevant in that context, with or without a 'JDL' scribbled beneath it. It sounds like it is the 'JDL' lettering itself that is being used to bar this photograph from the page.
You say you have had this discussion before, but I suspect you had a conversation about attributing this to the JDL without a citation doing so. Such attribution is as unnecessary here for us as it was for the authors of the citations we are referencing. They don't unpack the 'JDL', because there is no need to. DBaba (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have already answered this. I am not saying that that is a JDL signature, because that does not matter. It matters that it's a call for violence in a place that has experienced a JDL-sanctioned massacre, which JDL continues to defend actively. The graffiti in Belfast would be worth including if numerous sources verified it. If A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories contained an image of that graffiti on page 279 attributing it to radical Catholics, that alone would suffice. (Reuters and Salem-News are unnecessary but perhaps helpful, in case certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are found to be inadmissible by some of our colleagues.)
No, it's no surprise that it's in English. This is to be expected. Other such slurs by Jewish extremists in Hebron have often been in English, and obviously the JDL's Baruch Goldstein was an English speaker, as are many of the Jewish extremists in the West Bank. Anti-Arab graffiti in Hebron, such as "Die Sand-Niggers" [5] and "Arabs to the gas chambers" [6][7], has often been in English. (For more on Jewish-American extremist pathology in this vein, see Blumenthal's "Feeling the Hate".) DBaba (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canada JDL and EDL linkage

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)[reply]

Misleading/biased piece.

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)[reply]

You are welcome to add the appropriate information to the article. Some balance is badly needed in many articles on the Mid East conflict.--Kalsermar (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Defense_League&oldid=466843956"