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)

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 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)

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)

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 website is back up.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:24, 22 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. Istochleukzonnaam (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is quite absurd that this picture is used.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that this user (SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam, a.k.a. Knowalles 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So I take it this image, which was removed by Avaya1, can be restored. Paul K. (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The "Gas the Arabs" pic signed with JDL - revisited

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)

Anyone could have spraypainted it, snapped a photo on their cellphone, and uploaded it to WP. If you have evidence that the JDL (bad as they may be) has endorsed the policy of "gassing the Arabs" then please provide sources. BigJim707 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot respond to this any better than Sean.Hoyland did on the BLP page:

           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)  

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:29, 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)

Yes, Sean's comment seems quite opinion related to his own experiences - none of that allows for the inclusion of that POV pushing and not notworthy picture into the article. - Youreallycan 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• In several places now, you "accuse" people of taking a stand here because of "personal experiences" or "personal issues" whereas nothing in Sean's of my comments indicate any kind of personal involvement with this graffiti, or the people that have to look at it everyday. Please stop making this personal, when it is clearly not. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 14:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Were is the proof this particular image was done by this group? As has been pointed out, anyone could have done this. You need reliable secondary sources to use such. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reply A cursory google image search ('JDL Graffiti Israel') reveals dozens of similar examples of disgusting racism and genocidal language by JDL. Like all motivated bigots, the defenders of JDL will attempt to distort even obvious facts to promote their cause. We should not let them do this. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You assert multiple unknowns as if facts. - This is graffiti by an unknown person with unknown affiliations. Youreallycan 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that a user like User:Night of the Big Wind is more interested in possible meat puppetry than common decency in changing the header on this topic again. A user with zero history on this article or this talk page should not indulge in such behaviour. I hope someone else will amend the header once more.--Kalsermar (talk) 23:23, 1 February 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)

Whatever one thinks of the disputed picture, by no means is there anything wrong with the header of this topic. The "Gas the Arabs" pic signed with JDL" is exactly what the picture is, whether we like it or not. It is incomprehensible that three people saw fit to disrupt the header, in clear violation of the rules. Especially remarkable is that "Darkness Shines" resumed this weird edit war with the hypocritical comment "Just stop it guys".

In the meantime it is also remarkable that noone objected to my proposal above of 6 January (under "Pic with different caption") to restore the picture, and that nevertheless "BigJim707" and "Youreallycan" removed it for some strange reason. Please read my comment above of 22 April 2011. Paul K. (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you and Whaledad et. al. are willing to spar over the header on a talk page (not even the content of the article!) is proof positive of your desire to push a POV and make a point. What other possible purpose could there be in aggressively pushing "your" header when multiple users have objected to it? My fingers are just itching to be reported for ahem "vandalism"!--Kalsermar (talk) 14:57, 2 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)

• It might not help for the picture, but for content, see this: "Il sito è americano, della zona di Washington D.C. ed è vicino agli ambienti degli ebrei di origine russa, oltre a vantare alleanze con la JDL, quella che sui muri delle case palestinesi e sul muro della vergogna scrive "GAS THE ARABS" e "ARABS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS"." Translation: "The site is American, in the Washington DC area, and is close to the neighborhoods of the Jews of Russian origin, as well as maintaining alliances with the JDL, the one that writes "GAS THE ARABS" and "ARABS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS" on the walls of Palestinian homes and on the wall of shame." ("wall of shame" probably refers to the separation wall/fence) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the pro-Israel lobby will never accept that as proof that the graffiti was written by the JDL. I'm also interested in the piece of text right after that. It seems to read like a death sentence on Ewa Jasiewicz but it isn't clear as this can be attributed to JDL. Can you help with the translation? Google Translate isn't very good in this case. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the trouble would be. The source says, the JDL writes "Gas the Arabs" etc. on the walls of Palestinian homes. It doesn't establish that the JDL wrote it in the picture y'all have been talking about, but it supports the claim that the JDL does this in general. As for the bit about Ewa Jasiewicz: "Ewa Jasiewicz has to be hit by IDF forces in Gaza as she works for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. Here is a picture of Ewa. If you know exactly where she is, send us an email so we can take aim at her and get rid of a target once and for all." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 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)

It's all a conspiracy, see: no doubt the Palestinians are doing it themselves on their own houses. Or the New Israel Fund -- that's it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, the people trying to censor this picture off of Wikipedia have already shamelessly claimed this exactly. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A random graffiti picture - no excuse to add it to an organizations article - Youreallycan 22:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing "random" about this picture is that there are many more out there on the internet that show the same thing. The weirdest thing is that ther JDL inself hasn't disclaimed this graffiti anywhere, but here on Wikipedia, a group of Wikipedians keep on denying any link between the graffiti and the JDL, some even going as far as stating that they know for a fact that the JDL hasn't done it, and that the Palestinians have done it to discredit the JDL. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you back your claim that "a group of Wikipedians keep on denying any link between the graffiti and the JDL, some even going as far as stating that they know for a fact that the JDL hasn't done it, and that the Palestinians have done it to discredit the JDL"? Also, why always the "he said this" and "they did that" routine instead of arguing your case in concrete content-related terms?--Kalsermar (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Yes, I can. I'm not going to link to all kinds of instances of it on this very page (just pointing out this very clear one above: (Istochleukzonnaam 10:56 am, 22 January 2011): "Everyone can write JDL on a wall with some racist texts above it. Probably the work of opponents of JDL." "... the reader will see it as the work of the JDL. Which it most likely is not...". Other instances around the globe (this is just a random selection): [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: a lot of the comments make the claim: The graffiti is in English, not in Hebrew, so it can't have been done by Jews. Which of course is utter nonsense. For one, they obviously want the Palestians to be able to read it. And secondly: a lot of the settlers actually came from the US. Here's an article illustrating this: [23]

Also (2), dear Kalsermar. Time and again you comment on comments not being about the content. However, you consistenly disregard (as in: don't respond to) comments that DO talk about the content. (I'm not going to give examples.... just read the above. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sure you have a link where someone states: "'(t)he graffiti is in English, not in Hebrew, so it can't have been done by Jews"? beside the point, I was not aware that (most?) Palestinians speak English. I always thought they were Arabic speakers.... the rest of your contribution here I will address on your talk page since this page is not intended to consistently and utterly debunk your baseless claims.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, 14 links! and only three! of them are even from this project! It is heartening to see that you feel you have to link to the Fiji Hindi WP, where you are clearly edit warring as well with a user you have issues with on the Dutch WP, to make your "case". Naturally I am going to mostly ignore the eleven links that have nothing to do whatsoever with this English language Wikipedia. So, what are we left with? Well, here I see user ITLZN state "Could have been the work of everyone. Unlikely it is the work of JDL itself; very likely it is done by opponents". Another link you provide states "Removing picture that has been pushed on several other language versions. No indication that this - English! - sign in an Arab neighborhood was written by the JDL" while the third one says "anonymous graffiti could be sprayed by literally anyone - no evidence that Jewish settlers were actually involved". Some of the links on other projects that I have seen seem to go along generally the same lines.

Even though you state that you live in Texas I recognize that your first language is more likely to be Dutch rather than English but still, I find it hard to believe that you would not know the difference between "could", "might", "no indication", "no evidence", "(un)likely" on the one hand and "denying any link" or "stating that they know for a fact". If you indeed do not see the difference in those two sets of statements than perhaps you should refrain from editing here until your English skills are more up to the task. Suspecting however that your English is more than adequate, I believe it is more likely that you know that you have no basis whatsoever to back up your claims and are now trying to cover up talking in hyperbole.

The fact that many editors on this talk page have serious misgivings about the inclusion of the picture at issue makes me wonder how many of those you hold in such low regard that you feel you need to defame them by lobbing them together in a category of people you state "denying any link" between the graffiti and the JDL or "stating that they know for a fact" that Palestinians have been spraying this on their houses. For the most part, I see editors here argue in clear language what their misgivings are with regards to this particular image. Very few of those I see harbouring any POV one way or the other. Rather, I see people argue that the picture, containing an offensive text, is being attributed to a particular group without evidence that the group is actually involved. The fact that these kind of disgusting messages are being sprayed on Palestinian's homes is not being denied. what is simply argued here by many wikipedians is that there is no basis for including this image here, certainly given the fact that there are other images of a less controversial nature that could easily be substituted for it.

Finally, given the fact that you also included one of my own edits in your list of links I find myself personally extremely disturbed by your onwiki behaviour in this whole matter. I have no option other than to infer that you are addressing me and my editorial conduct on this project in a borderline libelous manner in an effort to downplay the statements of your "opponents" and cover up the lack of any real concrete substance on the matter on your part. Given your behaviour of "hounding" (my POV entirely) editors you disagree with on your home nl:wiki (I assume nl is your "home" wiki) on a cross-wiki basis coupled with attacks on my personal integrity and those of others you disagree with I think it is becoming time that the admins on this project start to keep a closer eye on your conduct here and take appropriate measures where and when necessary.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't go into the myriad of ad hominem attacks that are in the above. I will merely correct that nowhere did I say that the efforts to censor this picture were limited to en-wiki. On the contrary it IS a worldwide effort.

I will however respond to patently false accusation of hounding: There are three content pages on EN-Wiki where we have coincided. In each of these case you have started editing there (shortly) after I edited, and most case to revert my edit:

• Prince's Flag
  • Your first edit: 18:41, May 30, 2011‎
  • My first edit: 11:30, May 28, 2011‎
• Jewish Defense League
  • Your first edit: 14:15, January 24, 2011‎
  • My first edit: 18:19, January 21, 2011‎
• Geert Wilders
  • Your first edit: 10:26, May 6, 2011‎
  • My first edit: 08:53, May 6, 2011‎

I would appreciate it if you would retract any suggestion that I'm hounding you. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One more example to dispute the unlikeliness of JDL/Kahane supporters spray painting texts like that: [24]. Don't tell me that Palestians managed to find their way into Israeli school and spray painted “Kahane was right” and “A good Arab is a dead Arab” on the walls (just to discredit JDL/Kahane). _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is unlikely that Kahane/JDL supporters would ever do this: [25] _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Very nice all this but I never said you were hounding me. You do, however, hound "editors you disagree with (...) on a cross-wiki basis". Your editwarring, with regards to the picture that is at issue here with, SwedishSven on such disparate projects as the Slovakian and Fiji Hindi wikipedias is well documented. --Kalsermar (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not "hounding" but protecting the integrity of Wikipedia from cross-Wiki vandalism (for which - and for his sockpuppetry - the perpetrator was initially blocked on several locals and later globally and more recently with another sockpuppet created for that purpose). Can we now get back to the content please. There are several content-related comments in this thread that await your response. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture was restated, but as there are no consensus for it I have reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This picture has no place in this article at all - if the JDL have extreme positions and want to gas anyone then simply quote the reliable sources, - a random graffiti is simple worthless from an uninvolved point of view - Youreallycan 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

recent addition

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 -

• - Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers".35

Who are these members? If it has so clearly been done by these members who are they? how is this fact known? Youreallycan 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the translation link is inappropriate; there should be a url to the original Italian publication, plus translation (already there). The translation itself, which contains a passing mention in a run-on sentence, is barely coherent. Overall, the source is not reliable for its commentary on JDL, and it does not clearly support the assertions made in the article for the reasons pointed out by Youreallycan. JFHJr (㊟) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Youreallycan starts with a couple of false premises; for one thing, it has nothing to do with any picture. Note to JFHR: the reference I added to support the piece does link to the original italian publication. If you think the translation provided by YRC is incoherent, then you can consult my own translation (in the reference itself), which is just fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your presenting it as if fact and as a minimum the assertion needs attribution. Or do you have multiple reliable sources that assert this? Have named members of this organization gone there and been filmed doing what you assert, or have named members of this organization made statements saying they did what you assert, and do you have wikipedia reliable sources to support your addition? Youreallycan 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently I am on a 0 revert condition - but, as soon as it is over I will be removing this addition - its unsupportable as it currently stands by any en wikipedia policy interpretation. Feel free to make a case for its inclusion prior to that timeline. Youreallycan 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First you muddy the waters by misrepresenting the situation. Now you propose to set your own standards for inclusion (named members, filmed, statements) that have no basis in policy. I'll be happy to have others offer their views on what is appropriate here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to re - evaluate and revert your (now disputed) addition reflects badly on you imo. Its your addition - make your case now - I didn't "muddy any waters" - your addition was closely followed by the disputed pictures inclusion - (since removed) as it follows on totally from your desired addition. Attribution is a major policy position, such requests are not my desire or my guidelines at all. - Youreallycan 20:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, let's stick to the relevant elements. You can criticize the translation all you want, but the source is the original Italian article not the translation. The Italian article justifies the claim that was made in the article. Furthermore, a verifiable source in wikipedia doesn't need to present a video confession to justify the claims that it's making. If you have legitimate problems with the reliability of the source then that is the case you need to be making. Greg Comlish (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It simply needs attributing to whosoevers opinion it is - whose opinion is it? Youreallycan 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference is a news article, not an opinion piece, and it has already been sourced. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What details are presented in the article to support this claim? - we can not use weak citations to present opinion as if fact. What is the article authors name? Youreallycan 20:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Attribution of the picture

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)

Terrorist groups - and I don't think this group is a recognised terrorist group, but anyways - they don't deny graffiti. - and the fact that they haven't done so does not mean that it is indisputable that members of the group wrote this graffito. Youreallycan 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"...it was described as "a right-wing terrorist group" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation[3] in 2001, and as a hate group involved in "anti-Arab terrorism" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[4]According to the FBI, the JDL has been involved in plotting terrorist attacks within the United States.[3]"

Nobody here is saying that the attribution is "undisputable" and that's why the caption said it was signed with not signed by.

There are several people here on the talk page that maintain that it is unlikely that members/sympathizers of the JDL placed the graffiti, but that (the unlikeliness) was never substantiated. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Point is that the inclusion of this pic does not have broad support and nothing you say here changes that fact. The activities of the JDL can be described with appropriate sources but this pic does not belong here and there are suitable alternatives. Why is it considered so important to have this picture here? Is it that crucial that there is a "gas the Arab" slogan visible in an article that deals with a Jewish group? Is this even still about encyclopaedic content or just POV pushing?--Kalsermar (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from badly covered insinuations of antisemitism. This is not about a Jewish group, but about a terrorist group. And the picture clearly depicts expressions made in name of that group. As others have indicated sufficiently above. This is not an isolated incident, but an illustration of many. Censoring this picture from being placed in this article is POV pushing. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a terrorist group - its a nationalist group, and yes, it is Jewish. The picture has no encyclopedic value at all and does not belong in any en wikipedia article - it's unverifiable graffiti. Youreallycan 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat: "...it was described as "a right-wing terrorist group" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation[3] in 2001, and as a hate group involved in "anti-Arab terrorism" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[4]According to the FBI, the JDL has been involved in plotting terrorist attacks within the United States.[3]" _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ten years ago there was an issue that the FBI reported - has the FBI reported about the group in the last decade? Youreallycan 19:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Whaledad. Casual accusations of antisemitism against other editors are entirely incompatible with civility. This article is not about Judaism. This article is about a fringe terrorist organization that most Jews and Israelis rightfully find abhorrent for their violent and hateful doctrine. It is entirely appropriate to illustrate JDL's violent rhetoric and actions with graffiti such as this. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No its not - its unverified graffiti - and, even if you think that is the position of the group, its uncited and undue/POV to attempt to use it to assert that is the groups position. Youreallycan 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The graffiti is cited by what appears to be a reliable source. And vandalizing a school for girls with genocidal graffiti is one of the more minor offenses of the JDL. The FBI has concluded JBL has killed several Americans and even plotted to assassinate a Congressman. Are you honestly arguing that JDL shouldn't be labeled a terrorist organization? Greg Comlish (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What Youreallycan or anyone else is "honestly" arguing re: the JDL is irrelevant here. The picture, according to more than a few editors, has no place in this article. The nature of the JDL does not change that fact. There is a description of the activities of the JDL in the text with attribution and there are pictures that illustrate the JDL without the controversies surrounding the picture that is under discussion here. This picture, as many have argued, is not the appropriate one for this article.--Kalsermar (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you say why you think it isn't appropriate, preferably citing one of wikipedia's numerous policies, instead of just repeating yourself? Greg Comlish (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you want me to cite (again) why this picture is deemed inappropriate for this article but you don't want me to repeat myself? I suggest you reread the whole discussion on this matter to find out why many editors find this picture objectionable here. As for the, as you say numerous, policies... I've never been an acronym using wikipedia junkie (my POV, no offense intended) who can quote a plethora of abbreviations. I prefer to use common sense and go from there. I bet it violates WP:PINE or some such thing but might be allowed under WP:BARK but I may have gotten some of the letters mixed up. ;-)--Kalsermar (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you're citing WP:COMMONSENSE?? That doesn't usually carry much weight... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kalsermar, I want you to write down the reasons why you find the picture's inclusion objectionable rather than just making vacuous assertions such as "This picture, as many have argued, is not the appropriate one for this article." Greg Comlish (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you go... it's all in there, just ignore the other bits. After all, you don't want me to repeat myself, do you? Like I suggested earlier.... reread this entire discussion to find the reasons many have given. I fail to see why I should cater to your wishes in this matter on a talk page that is as unwieldy as this one already is.--Kalsermar (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to get a consensus by asking you to explain your opposition. Presumably you are also looking to improve wikipedia, yes? That is why you should explain yourself instead of obliquely citing "the entire discussion" (most of which, coincidentally, is not even in agreement with you). Greg Comlish (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have explained my position but in the cause of furthering this discussion I will do so again.

1) The picture shows graffiti without proof positive that the subject of this article are the maker of said graffiti. This, imho, disqualifies the picture in this case in the interest of neutrality.

2) There is at least one other picture available on Commons ([26]) that shows graffiti without attributing an offensive message to the group.

3) There is already mention in the article of the JDL practice of graffiti spraying and the inclusion of the picture, given the opposition to it, does not further the reader's understanding of the subject at hand.

There is clearly opposition to this image on this talk page. The opposition is not for spurious reasons imho such as would be the case of a [insert religion here] editor not wanting to see a picture of [insert religious figure here] or a, shall we say, sensitive editor not wanting to see a picture of genitalia on appropriate articles but rather opposition based on neutrality and rejecting unsourced materials. coupled with the fact that there is an alternative AND mention in the text of the facts regarding graffiti makes it easy I should think to reach consensus that everyone could agree upon. Given all this I cannot help personally to think that insisting on this image as editors Whaledad or Paul K. for instance have done has a more sinister reason. That has nothing to do btw with anti-semitism as has been suggested here but everything to do with an anti-Israeli bias on the part of these editors.

Having said that, I find it a tad rich, on a talk page where I have seen things like "pro-Israel lobby" (Whaledad, 20:12, 2 February 2012), "people trying to censor this picture off of Wikipedia have already shamelessly claimed" (Whaledad, 22:20, 2 February 2012), plain falsehoods (Whaledad, 14:52, 3 February 2012), accusations wikipedians want to reject the pic because it is "too telling" re: JDL (Paul K., 16:46, 22 April 2011) or "Like all motivated bigots (...) defenders of JDL" (Greg Comlish, 18:27, 2 February 2012), to have people complain about a clear reference to POV pushing and twisting it into "badly covered insinuations of antisemitism", as Whaledad put it and you agreed to. I take it that "badly covered insinuations of bigotry, censorship and shameless behaviour" are perfectly civil?--Kalsermar (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────┘ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaledad (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me address your concerns with the picture 1 by 1:

@1 - The graffiti itself is signed with JDL. Outside of Wikipedia no reliable source has disputed that this graffiti was placed by members or sympathizers of JDL.

@2 - Like the text describes the acts of terrorism of JDL and not (just) the peaceful meetings they have held, is the same reason why a more expressive graffiti picture is chosen here. Note, again, that this is not the only instance of extreme racist graffiti placed by JDL members or sympathizers in the occupied area (or in Israel proper for that matter - even in schools).

@3 - the weakest argument of all: Pictures in articles are MEANT to complement the text. The fact that something is already covered in text is never a qualified reason not to place a picture.

I won't further comment on your non-content related diatribe.

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 23:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1)No reliable source has attributed this graffiti to JDL nor that JDL approves of it or that "Gas the Arabs" is an official JDL policy aim, 2)There is an alternative, 3)Pictures are meant to complement the article and not repeat necessarily what is already written down. The alternative serves this purpose just fine and would gain consensus easily with your support I believe if you are truly seeking consensus. In short, I'm left with the conclusion that your response does not alter any of the facts in this case and the picture is still not supported by consensus. Quite the opposite actually.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

1)We had an article from an Italian news source attributing this graffiti to JDL. 2 & 3) JDL's most notable attribute is their terrorist ideology and use of violence. It is entirely appropriate to use a photo of the this graffiti to illustrate this ideology in action. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly me, here I was thinking searching for consensus was our goal! O well, some editors advocate this pic, others vehemently oppose it with good arguments. Ergo, no consensus for inclusion of the picture. There is an alternative that would probably be acceptable to most concerned.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One attempts to build consensus by trying to get people to agree to follow objective criteria. The fact that some people find the photo objectionable doesn't in itself negate its value for the encyclopedia. However, I would definitely consider alternate images that showcase JDL's terrorist ideology and genocidal leanings and I would welcome their inclusion in this article. Please feel free to provide these alternatives as you are apparently so enthusiastic to do. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kalsermar, Wikipedia consensus does NOT mean that a few select contributors can block progress. Your arguments against inclusion of the pictures have all been properly answered. Your continued attempts to block inclusion of the picture is POV pushing. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Greg, the only one who appears enthusiastic in reaching consensus is indeed I. It is you who apparently cannot accept the fact that a multitude of editors have serious qualms about the inclusion of this picture. The POV that can be read in your comment here is self evident and makes it hard to reach any kind of consensus. That is most unfortunate but entirely a situation of your making. I suggest you start looking for an alternative image that does justice to the lead of the article instead of bringing your own POV to this debate. If people object to an image out of religious reasons or some such thing as I have argued here before then you'd certainly have a point that objections in and of themselves do not negate the value of an image and I would always support you on that issue. Here we have a different situation altogether though. Here we have multiple editors objecting to the image on solid encyclopaedia-related grounds concerning sourcing and neutrality. In such a case objections are most certainly of prime importance and rejecting an image on such grounds is entirely proper.

In point of fact, I do regard terrorist organizations like JDL to be abhorrent. Certainly it is your right to sympathize with whichever terrorist organizations you like, but I hardly think that gives you some moral high ground to declare opposing viewpoints "POV" while christening your own to be "Neutral." Furthermore, I have given you the opportunity to engage the sourcing of the image, but you have not done so. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it perverse that you would state that I "sympathize" with a terrorist organization and consider it a personal attack. I hardly am surprised though as that (personal attacks) often happens when one runs out of rational arguments. Also, you seem to have learned well from Whaledad in this conversation on how to misrepresent facts, no doubt in an attempt to make your own POV somehow look more palatable. Interestingly, I have never claimed that "you are POV" or "I am neutral" and you of course know that. We all have a POV. You do and I do. Your POV in this case is that you think the picture is appropriate. My POV is that it isn't. Unfortunately for you, there are people who hold either of these views to the point that there is no consensus that this picture should be on this article. The neutral thing to do now is to work towards some sort of compromise such as in the form of the alternate picture I have suggested. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be amenable to reaching such a compromise. In closing, I am not interested in opportunities you do or do not give me. My efforts in reaching a solution are well documented.--Kalsermar (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is going to be impressed with your "well documented efforts in reaching a solution" given that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, much less engage with, the numerous counter-arguments that have comprehensively addressed all the issues you have brought forward. Furthermore, your characterization of my words is a distortion. I didn't say that you sympathized with terrorist organizations like JDL. You had alluded to my POV on JDL and I merely affirmed that, yes, I personally found violent organizations like these abhorrent. Then I affirmed your right to embrace them or reject as you desire. As far as wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is of any violent organization. But we shouldn't let editorial POV block a reliably sourced claim. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to impress... I'm here to contribute to this encyclopaedia. Arguments and counter arguments have been sufficiently stated on both sides of the debate. Result is no consensus that this picture belongs here. --Kalsermar (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalsermar, you are not a referee for this page with the authority to declare the debate concluded and announce the results of that debate. Lack of consensus does not mean that debate is over, nor does it even mean that a proposed change should be rejected or even postponed. All it means is that discussion should be encouraged. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you advocated a majority position you might have a point but there are more editors against including this picture than there are for it. Having said that... the definitive positions laid out on this talk page include 9 editors in a 5-4 split. That is hardly a broad-based pool for consensus seeking and can never be justification for going the way of the 4 editors, especially since there has been so many and clearly stated arguments against including the picture. Also, lack of consensus usually means that disputed material stays out of articles, not the other way around. Can you point out where I declared the debate closed btw? --Kalsermar (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to point you to your previous post when you pronounced "Arguments and counter arguments have been sufficiently stated on both sides of the debate. Result is no consensus that this picture belongs here" which is merely one of your more recent and explicit pronouncements regarding this debate. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It doesn't matter who has the majority viewpoint vs the minority viewpoint. Arguing from a majoritarian viewpoint is not only a tenuous and unstable position (especially with a 5-4 disagreement), but it ignores the discursive process by which the encyclopedia is improved. "Consensus" is never a valid objection to a proposed edit by itself. Again, I'd encourage you to formulate your objections in terms of the agreed wikipedia policies. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

they have been sufficiently stated and the result is still no consensus and therefore disputed material has no place in the article until that has changed. That is entirely different from "discussion closed". That said, it wouldn't serve much purpose for us to continue this discussion and I suggest we let more voices be heard to see if new arguments can be made in this matter. It indeed does not matter who has "majority" or "minority", I already indicated as much. It does matter that the inclusion of this picture is not supported by consensus.

As for policies... I remember a time when there were much less of those around and a lot more got done in those days and it was a lot more fun as well. Wikipedia, like all large communities, is slowly dying, being choked by its own massive bulk. I shouldn't have to be weeding through a mass of policy documents in order to contribute meaningfully and nor should anyone else have to do that. That is not the way Wikipedia was meant to be. Nothing has progressed in any meaningful or helpful way in the years since Wikipedia started out as the idealistic project it was back then. If you want to delve into the myriad of acronyms, be my guest. I will continue to state my case as I have always done. In the most clear language I can produce while thinking for myself. Invoking WP:WAYTOGO or WP:NOWAYJOSE is not for me, nor should it have to be. Now, WP:COMMON, there is one I can work with!--Kalsermar (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The policies are there as a set of standards to help resolve controversy and disputes. The policies are there to help you. If you can't formulate your objections in terms of agreed upon community standards then you shouldn't be granted any influence over wikipedia articles. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazing.... you just singlehandedly rewrote Wikipedia policy! Anyways, I'm done discussing this with you as it is clear from where I am standing that you have no wish to reach consensus or a compromise unless it is exactly the outcome you wish. I suggest you put up a notice on "request for comment" or some such thing. --Kalsermar (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have rewrote wikipedia policy by insisting that you use wikipedia policy? Interesting. I believe in resolving disputes by working within the agreed upon community standards. Those standards have been codified for your convenience, if you were ever inclined to use them. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely you did! By insisting upon it you are violating everything this community stands for. A few posts earlier you actually managed to write the following: "(i)f you can't formulate your objections in terms of agreed upon community standards then you shouldn't be granted any influence over wikipedia articles". This is absolutely shocking in its arrogance and totally incompatible with everything that Wikipedia is. In my humble opinion it disqualifies you from the right and privilege of contributing to this project. Help:Editing clearly states: "Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers.". No less than Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." and "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone... The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording". On Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset I read: "Ignore all rules (IAR): (...) The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. (emphasis mine)". A piece written by J. Wales states: "Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty." and ""{y}ou can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred". Oddly enough I cannot find anything remotely similar to: "unless you follow our principles and can state your case by quoting guidelines you may not edit or participate in the Wikipedia community". By suggesting that someone "shouldn't be granted any influence over wikipedia articles" based on his or her ability or willingness to quote from the policy and guideline documents you seem to hold sacred makes you, in my humble opinion, manifestly unfit to be an editor here. I believe in resolving disputes and generally hold anyone I discourse with in the highest regard. I also firmly believe that some basic set of rules and guidelines are essential in the smooth functioning of any community but after learning of your positions in this matter, for me personally, you have ceased to be a credible discussion partner. --Kalsermar (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like an edit, you need to engage the community and explain yourself. The policies are there to help you do this. You can choose to ignore the policies, but that doesn't alleviate you from your responsibility to explain your position. And taking actions that are in absence or violation of established wikipedia policy heightens one's obligation to explain one's opinions. Anybody citing IAR is under increased obligation to explain his/her reasoning and address objections. Citing IAR doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want and never explain yourself to anybody else. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Whaledad, let's put some facts together, shall we? We started out, in January of 2011, with user Swedishsven (who indeed has a bunch of socks and is now blocked but that is irrelevant) objecting to this image. We had user Eliscoming1234 chip in: "I completely agree. It is quite absurd that this picture is used". In March 2011 user Avaya1 objected as well. User DBaba seems to agree with including the image. Much more recently user BigJim707 objected to the pic as well. Also, user Youreallycan has been quite vocal in objecting to this picture as has user Darkness Shines. All in all, I count at least 5 editors who objected to the picture and 4 who do not object to it. Dear, dear Whaledad, how on Earth is that "a few select contributors" blocking progress? I would like to think you are referring to the editors who share your POV on this matter but somehow I doubt that. Me thinks it is more likely another case of false representation of the facts as you have done before on this very same talk page. Your arguments, likewise, for inclusion of this picture, have all been answered in a very convincing way. Accusing me of POV pushing is the height of hypocrisy if you don't mind me saying so. Anyways, bottom line is that more than a few editors have voiced serious objections that were, if I may say so myself, well articulated. Another (seemingly slightly smaller) group of editors have no objections. Ergo, no consensus. It is unfortunate that you are not willing, by the looks of it, to work towards a compromise with the alternate image I have suggested.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More examples of comparable acts of aggression by members of the JDL can be found here: Shoah.org French far-right recruits join Israeli settlers in West Bank: " Five people, who identified themselves as members of the JDL, poured liters of cooking oil all over the store and its books." "In another case, approximately twenty JDL members assaulted four students from Nanterre University. The attack, in which one student had his facial bones broken, took place within the compounds of the Administrative Court of Paris."

Also an interesting read: Press.tv Members of Jewish militant group arrested in Paris

I'm also ordering Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories by Anna Baltzer, which apparently also describes the graffiti. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NY Times Netanyahu's Hebron Dilemma: "Unlike many Jewish settlers, those in Hebron are almost all religious fundamentalists. Some openly venerate the memory of Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshipers in a mosque in 1994, and some don't conceal their admiration for Rabin's assassin." _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Hebron - new trailer - pay particular attention to what is shouted at 0:44... _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 21:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And the ultimate: Meir Weinstein of Jewish Defence League NAILED on CBC Radio - banning George Galloway at 2:13 linking Meir Weinstein of JDL Canada with a "Death to Arabs" statement on his Facebook page (he can't read Hebrew, really?). _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Taking the biscuit: Israel is paying internet workers to manipulate online content. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• OK, one more for the road: Haaretz: The writing on the wall. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Whaledad, Do your comments elsewhere, ("Some of the graffiti is signed JDL, which good sources then sometimes mention as well, but I've not yet found a good source stating for a fact that any of this racist / death-threat graffiti is left by JDL") that seem to directly contradict what you've said here, mean you have reversed your position?--Kalsermar (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Good to know that you're still stalking me, dear Kalsermar. And no, I haven't reversed my position at all. I think we all agree above here, that there is no HARD evidence that the graffiti is written by the JDL, other than the signed graffiti itself. We also have NOBODY (outside of Wikipedia discussion) that denies that the graffiti was place by or on behalf of the JDL. For this article: whether it was actually placed by a JDL member or symphatizer or not is irrelevant, it is notable for JDL as it is one of many racist, threatening graffiti texts that show the JDL name. Nobody here wants to claim in the article or under the picture that it was actually placed by a JDL member/symphatizer. Clear? The JDL defenders here however are doing their utmost to avoid this picture being placed anywhere, they obviously want to make sure that in this conflict only Palestinians/Arabs are made out to be bad people. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Dearest friend, that's too bad because it sure seems that way to me. --Kalsermar (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Include the picture -- evidence is more than sufficient that the graffiti was the work of the JDL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Arguments in favor:
    1. The picture is in itself a reliable source
    2. It's not disputed anywhere that it is a true, unaltered depiction of graffiti sprayed in Hebron
    3. There are several pictures available on the web, showing similar expressions, so it's not a one-off
    4. This and similar pictures are regularly described and/or displayed by reliable source and even in official reports (e.g. UN Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, chapter 4)
    5. The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL
    6. Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument
  • -- _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Paul K. (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Regardless whether or not the picture was the work of JDL members, the relevant fact is that those who placed it saw fit to use the name "JDL", which is of course telling. The hilarious thing about this discussion is that this telling and abhorrent JDL picture would never have received so much attention if those who try to conceal facts like these would not argue so strongly against it all the time. Everyone whose attention was caught by this edit war and the lengthy discussions on this page knows now that JDL supporters in the Israeli settlements work with slogans like "Gas the Arabs", and therefore everyone has learned about their mindset.
  • So, let us continue this argument for many years. All the time more people will learn about the situation in the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the mindset of the Israeli setttlers.

    Well, at least we know now that Paul K. is indeed capable of perfectly neutral editing in this field!

    Of course the arguments against have been repeated all too often. There is no proof this graffiti is the work of the JDL. There is no source confirming that gassing Arabs is a JDL objective and there is a perfectly suitable and non-controversial picture of JDL graffiti available on Commons. There's a bunch more arguments against to be found on this talk page. Clearly, the consensus to include the image is non-existent.--Kalsermar (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, indeed, you keep repeating the same arguments:

    1. There is no proof this graffiti is the work of the JDL. - There is a signed statement by somebody who purports to represent the JDL that the graffiti was placed by the JDL. Failing any dispute to this statement outside of Wikipedia that statement has to be assumed to be valid.
    2. There is no source confirming that gassing Arabs is a JDL objective - And nobody is claiming that it is an official (or even unoffical) objective of the JDL
    3. there is a perfectly suitable and non-controversial picture of JDL graffiti - Which would be great if the intent of Wikipedia was to hide the fact that there is a series of highly inflammatory graffiti texts spray painting on the occupied territories, particularly in Hebron.
    4. consensus to include the image is non-existent - Correct, as it is quite obvious that a number of editors with seemingly a vested interest in the image of the JDL are digging their heels in the sand.

    -- _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It appears to me that proponents of exclusion are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the views of those in favor of inclusion. The "Gas the Arabs" vandalism of a Palestinian school for girls occurred during a raid by Israeli settlers. The vandal declared himself a member of JDL. Nobody is claiming that this is official JDL sanctioned vandalism, a meaningless designation since JDL itself exists as a loosely affiliated network of thugs, zealots, and terrorists. We're only saying that the vandal is claiming himself to be a member of the movement and that the action was done in JDL's name. After all, we call Al Qaeda an "Islamic" Terrorist Group because that is how they identify themselves. We don't poll every single Imam in the country to determine Islam's official position on terrorism before we allow somebody to use the term "Islamic Terrorism". JDL needs to be described by the actions of its supporters. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Kalsermar, when you say "...add the picture all you want to a general article concerning offensive graffiti, political violence or whatever..." would that include an article on racism? Just sayin'... _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Guess we'll never know for as abhorrent as these sentiments are.... they are not racism. furthermore, I do not intend to humour you in your efforts to import issues from other projects into this one. I suggest you come up with something better...--Kalsermar (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a more racist statement than "Gas the Arabs." Greg Comlish (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Which race exactly is it that is being targeted here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsermar (talk • contribs)

Dear Kalsermar, I know that time again you have denied the Arabs and Palestians the right to claim "racism" (you really want me to diff that here?), when they are treated like this, but the truth is, that decent people do consider the discrimination of Arabs/Palestinians racism: Racism in the Palestinian territories. The fact that you even have to ask the question, is very telling. The fact that you are on a witch-hunt to get the pictures that show this vile JDL-signed genocidal graffiti removed from Wikipedia around the globe is really deploring but also very telling. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Friend, you are clearly out of line here and it is so noted. Of course, Arabs are not a race. Victims of some abhorrent actions like those shown in this picture, yes. Then again, so are a lot of people. It is vile, discriminatory and all that but not racism--Kalsermar (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalsermar, from your statement "just don't attribute it to a whole group without proper sourcing" it appears that we have resolved the dispute about the image in favor of posting it, since the image was never attributed to JDL as a whole group, nor is anybody arguing that it should be. The "Gas the Arabs" image is just another example of the type of vandalism and violence perpetrated in JDL's name. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we haven't. It doesn't belong on this article as I've said many times before, as have others. By placing it here you are attributing it to JDL in general. There are non-controversial alternatives, use those.--Kalsermar (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalsermar, I think everybody is well aware that not all members/sympathizers of the JDL resort to violence and terrorism, but instead partake in more peaceful activities like Internet Advocacy. I have no problem adding something in the caption as to this phrase not representating a majority opinion of the JDL. What I have a problem with is hiding the fact that this kind of extreme graffiti is sprayed on the walls and doors of Palestinians in the occupied territories. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. If placing an image of graffiti automatically and unfairly suggests the entire organization is responsible for that act, then why are you only objecting to some instances of graffiti and not others? There is no basis to say "you can show images of vandalism, but not if it makes JDL look racist and genocidal." As soon as you base your objection to image because of the message it contains, then your are introducing POV into the article. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all Greg, not at all. There is, and I hope you know that, quite the difference between showing an image that portrays a group of being guilty of mere graffiti spraying (for which in most countries you don't get the death penalty or some such thing) and of linking a group to possible incitement to genocide. In the interest of finding a compromise I suggested the alternate picture with just plain graffiti, not because of any POV issues but because of countering any POV issues and protecting the integrity of the encyclopaedie. I did not suggest the alternate image because it is so perfect for the article but as an extended hand in offering a compromise I hoped you could agree to. I do hope you can appreciate the difference for example of someone spraying the logo of the, lets say, LA Lakers somewhere in Chicago or a Lakers fan spraying "Hang all Bulls" with the Lakers logo in the same location. Not quite on the same level but you get my drift.--Kalsermar (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the reason you are objecting to the image of the graffiti is because the message of the graffiti is odious and it poorly reflects on JDL. This isn't a valid objection. The purpose of wikipedia is to present the facts, not selectively present only the facts that adhere to the POV of select editors. And, yes, if the "Lakers Defense League" was an organization of thugs with a violent history, then it would be appropriate to illustrate that with their extremist graffiti. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, unfortunately for you I'm not the only one objecting.... I am merely one of a number who are objecting. I'm not objecting because it reflects poorly on anyone although I'm not convinced you are not advocating it because it does reflect poorly on someone. I'm objecting for clear, encyclopaedic, neutrality related reasons and you know it. I also take it from your reply that you evidently do not appreciate the differences in the scenario I painted here which is unfortunate.--Kalsermar (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So what if we place both pictures and in the caption make it clear that the graffiti in pic 1 was placed by a small extreme faction of the JDL, whereas the graffiti in pic 2 reflects the more common way of the JDL to express themselves? _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a sample of JDL actions from the ADL.org website:

• March 3, 1983: A JDL leader, surrounded by 25 heavily armed supporters, announced plans to create vigilante squads that would mete out "Jewish justice" to "Jew haters." This action was criticized by New York police and by ADL associate national director Abraham Foxman, who noted: "The JDL has a history of violence and extremism and a knack for exacerbating tensions."
• February 28, 1984: An anonymous caller claiming to be a JDL member took responsibility for spray-painting the homes of local sponsors of a Soviet film series. A JDL spokesman denied his group's involvement, but did admit that the perpetrators may have been JDL members.
• March 13, 1984: An anonymous caller claimed responsibility for the JDL in the planting of a practice grenade in the Greenburgh, N.Y. town hall during the showing of a Soviet film. A JDL official denied responsibility, but then admitted that it was "possible the people who perpetrated this may be JDL members."
• September 2, 1986: A tear gas grenade was thrown into the opening performance of the Soviet Moiseyev Dance Company at the Metropolitan Opera. Twenty people were sent to the hospital for treatment, including the Soviet Ambassador, Uri Dubinin. 4000 others were evacuated from the building. JDL members Jay Cohen, Sharon Katz and JDL leader Victor Vancier were arrested in 1987 for carrying out the incident. (See October 27 1987)
• November 26, 1986: Victor Vancier, [aka Chaim Ben Yosef] the "self-proclaimed leader" of the JDL in New York, was arrested outside the Penta Hotel with a tear gas grenade after a fire broke out in the tunnels under the hotel where the Soviet Moiseyev Dance Company, was staying. Vancier was charged with a federal weapons violation. (See October 27 1987)
• May 8, 1987: Jay Cohen, Sharon Katz and Victor Vancier, all JDL members, are arrested in connection with six incidents, including the 1984 firebombing a car at the Soviet diplomatic residence in Rive rdale, the 1985 and 1986 fire and pipe bombings of cars owned by a rival JDL member in Howard Beach, the 1986 firebombing at the stage door of Avery Fisher Hall before the performance of the Soviet State Symphony, and the detonation of a tear gas grenade at the Metropolitan Opera in September 1986. Authorities stated that with the arrests of the three, they had "solved all the significant JDL terrorist acts in the New York area. "

These (and other) samples illustrate that there is nothing "out of this world" in placing this picture in the article on JDL. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 21:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Better idea.... let's not put up any picture and end this drama of repeating and repeating again everything that has been said numerous times. Don't just take my word on it... numerous editors have objected for very sound reasons. Finding irrelevant links to this discussion won't change that. --Kalsermar (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All of your "sound" arguments (which are just a few, primarily "you can't prove that the graffiti was sprayed by JDL") have been countered. Almost none of the counter arguments have even been honored with an attempt to answer. This is covered under spoilers. The links I have presented are very valid. It shows that "instilling fear", using graffiti and using gas are most certainly "tricks of the trade" at JDL. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 06:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Me thinks you got that backwards. By all means though, request comments on the appropriate pages from uninvolved editors. So far, most of those have come out against the inclusion of the picture on this article just because of the "sound" arguments I keep making. Arguments that have not been satisfactorily countered. You really should reread the talk pages... it is clear you are missing some very substantial parts of the debate.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:39, 24 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)

No you are not. Quite the contrary actually. As indicated in my overview of positions here there are at least 5 editors against including the image and 4 in favor. Definitely no consensus for inclusion as you can see. --Kalsermar (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be an interesting pudding (puddings being where the proof is). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these other opponents of the image might be willing to summarize his/her objections and work with towards consensus? We need somebody who is willing to engage counter arguments and argue within the framework of established wikipedia policy. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:56, 27 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)

Recap

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)

• Of course the one-sidedness of your recap needs to be addressed:
  • Proponents of adding the "Gas the Arabs" picture (since January 2011 on this talk page): Whaledad, DBaba, Paul K., Greg Comlish, Nomoskedasticity (is FIVE)
  • Arguments to support the placement of the picture:
    1. The picture is in itself a reliable source
    2. It's not disputed anywhere that this picture (or one of the many other similar pictures of similar graffiti signed JDL) is a true, unaltered depiction of graffiti sprayed in Hebron
    3. There are several pictures available on the web, showing similar expressions, so it's not a one-off
    4. This and similar pictures are regularly described and/or displayed by reliable source and even in official reports (e.g. UN Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, chapter 4)
    5. The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL
    6. Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument
• _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  But of course it is one sided Whaledad... you are absolutely correct. I mean, what was I thinking saying at least four when it was in fact five? and stating "(f)eel free to add insights that I have not included"... what was I thinking!--Kalsermar (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of dead links

Internet Archive, go. --Niemti (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn 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)

A rewrite for the lead section is needed

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)

Is the American JDL actually defunct?

• It's "former terrorist organization".
• The website is offline.
• Shelley Rubin is apparently no longer active. [An upcoming documentary: "Archetypal good Jewish girl Shelley, escapes family expectations by falling in love with the leader of America’s most active terrorist organization. Thrust into a world that walks the line between activism and terrorism, Shelley faces alienation from her family, then the imprisonment and violent death of her friends, her husband and ultimately her son. Shattered by this experience, Shelley must 30 years later, rebuild her own life. But before this, old debts must be paid. She must find a new leader for the Jewish Defence League. Her choice gives someone else the top job and all the perils associated with violent extremism … or does it?"[28]]

--Niemti (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It became defunct some time before 1995. JDL actions in the mid 90's consisted of 3 or 4 apparently homeless men who engaged in disorderly conduct in public. I fondly recall them yelling at a group of lesbians who were protesting in front of a Catholic church in Westwood, CA: "Yah, lookit those hairy legs!". During the 80's, I was invited to a protest by the JDL that consisted of Irv Rubin and a dozen kids from AZA and BBG yelling a lot. I was told to wear hiking boots or motorcycle boots so I could help kick the NAZI's. It was a lot of silliness and the members were uniformly pathetic, bored youth. It's hard to believe they were ever a credible threat to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Shelly Rubin usurped control of the JDL upon Irv's death, falsely believing she had "inherited" it from him. It doesn't work this way, and has never worked this way. But, in the early 2000s, the actual JDL leadership decided to disband due to being overshadowed by Shelly and her band of clowns. 172.58.208.177 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gang?

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)

Racism

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)

Being "bigoted" against racists is racist? Then by your logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Martin Luther King Jr., Black Panthers, Anti-Defamation League, and all other anti-racist people and groups are also racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.45.181 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111010131820/http://www.jdl.org/index.php/ideology-advocacy/anti-terrorism-racism/ to http://jdl.org/index.php/ideology-advocacy/anti-terrorism-racism/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140910205328/http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=183 to http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=183
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150704104439/http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=183 to http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=183
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220082037/http://www.jewishdefenseleague.org/information/settlement.shtml to http://www.jewishdefenseleague.org/information/settlement.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150227234100/http://www.jdl.org/information/five_principles.shtml to http://www.jdl.org/information/five_principles.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703210048/http://www.jdl.org/israel/israel_or_palestine.shtml to http://www.jdl.org/israel/israel_or_palestine.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100707233327/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/pistole041404.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/pistole041404.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930153827/http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0799/9907081.html to http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0799/9907081.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150206002555/http://www.jdl.org/misc/fbi.shtml to http://www.jdl.org/misc/fbi.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222055835/http://odeo.com/audio/1987369/view to http://odeo.com/audio/1987369/view
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140810142319/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/14/obit.irv.rubin.ap/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/14/obit.irv.rubin.ap/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110112235527/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/Anti+Islamic+group+from+hold+rally/4066857/story.html to http://www.nationalpost.com/Anti+Islamic+group+from+hold+rally/4066857/story.html#ixzz1BsfoDl5x
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218082052/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Islamophobic+group+draws+fierce+protests/4096408/story.html to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Islamophobic+group+draws+fierce+protests/4096408/story.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

JDL US, Canada, France?

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)

Organizations designated as terrorist in North America

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)

• As far as the linked FBI terrorism report from 2001, a footnote under a chart there says that "Figures include terrorist incidents, suspected terrorist incidents, and preventions, (The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.)" precisely because the FBI does not consider the JDL to be a right-wing terrorist group, which is evident from the text of the report, but it included the JDL with right-wing terrorist groups for the purposes of the chart. Editors reverting my changes need to study RS more carefully. --Wiking (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  What? "The JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group" -- in cultures that use conventional logic and language this passage does not lead to the conclusion that the FBI does not consider the JDL to be a right-wing terrorist group, rather the contrary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It absolutely implies that the FBI is making a special disclaimer to the effect that it lumps the JDL with right-wing terrorist groups only for the purposes of the chart, while it classifies it somehow differently. Otherwise what would be the purpose of such footnote? To support this further, see that it does not characterize the JDL as such in the paragraph dedicated to it. Present edition is misleading and violates WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Wiking (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomoskedasticity, I don't understand why you would revert my edits claiming that they lack consensus after I laid out the above and you made some minor changes to this talk page, but chose not to respond further. --Wiking (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    Your own edit on this topic has been reverted not just by me but by others as well. Your argument is not persuasive; "The JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group" means that the JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    Not by others (plural), but by one other editor, who did not bother responding to the arguments above. I already pointed out that your use of the text from this footnote under a chart is a violation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; your going in circles in this discussion is an example of what not to do per WP:EQ; finally, even though I pointed out that this article fails the criteria for category inclusion, both you and the other editor reverted that part of my edit without offering any arguments to support such inclusion. I will give you and any other interested editors adequate time to respond, but if necessary, will proceed with DRN request. --Wiking (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    I don't have to respond to "it says so but I [you] say it ain't".--TMCk (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    Neither one of you refuted my reasoning, or addressed the second issue of category inclusion. Also see this for an additional opinion. Ready to move for DRN? --Wiking (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    There is nothing to "refute" coming from la-la-land. It's that simple. +I don't have to respond to the cat issue which I haven't edited.--TMCk (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

    The FBI report does not say that the JDL is a terrorist organization. It says it's a far right organization. If you say it says it's a terrorist organization, then specify the page it says it. Here is the wording from the FBI report "Rubin and Krugel were active members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a violent extremist Jewish organization. " That is to the best of my research the only place where the FBI defines the JDL. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    It's right in the linked document: "The JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    the document doesn't say that. It says extremist group. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    You are quite mistaken: the quote is exactly as I've given it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    Show me where. The document you are quoting uses the quote I quoted. "Extremist group." You are just putting in your own bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    Just do a search for part of the text string. How hard can it be?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    And has been pointed out to you, you're misreading it. Do a search for JDL and you'll see it described as a right wing extremist organization. That search term you are alluding to is for statistical purposes only. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    So you found it. Mazal tov!! Your error seems to be in believing that an organization cannot be both an extremist one and a terrorist one. Another mystery... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    You keep missing the point, the stats needed the point made that the JDL is a terrorist org, so that the graphs are in sync, but in the text, the JDL is classified as a RW Extreme Org. That is how it's defined. In your link, it is DEEMED, not defined. Big difference. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    The category in question uses "designated"; the text uses "classified". So "defined" is not relevant; "deemed" is of course a good synonym for "designated" and "classified". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

    No. When you're defining a group, you use the word, define, as the FBI did, when they defined the JDL as an extremist group. When you are explaining a graph or chart and want to explain why the numbers don't add up, you say, in this case, we are using the JDL numbers. One cause of terror doesn't a terrorist group make. That is WP:SYNTH. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 18 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)

They are of course misquoting the same FBI source they are using. If you read the linked FBI source, you will see the source never says the JDL is a RWTO. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So the sources are "wrong"? Everyone is wrong except for you?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is an misinterpretation it is a misinterpretation that is consistently made by countless very reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on the opinions of its editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Circular logic/referencing, the news sources are citing the FBI report. But, A Solution → Find independent sources or articles discussing the JDL and then perhaps use those unless the FBI report is the only source that doesn't reference the FBI report? In which case, scrap it since it is UNDUE. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't cite a source citing the FBI and use that as a source. That's circular logic. The FBI did not state the JDL is a terrorist organization in this source, they said the JDL is an extremist organization. Your bias is showing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:51, 19 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)

Thanks for proving my point. I take it you didn't read the report. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In any event, if you look at the recent reports, one from this decade, the JDL is not listed at all, so this is most certainly WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS to include. The most recent PDF is 2008 and the NCTC site doesn't even have JDL listed which is listed as current but doesn't have guides listed.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 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.

• The journalist has frequently exposed the work of the JDL, who are banned and classed as a terrorist group in both Israel and the USA, where it features on an FBI terror list.The Telegraph
• The FBI identified the JDL as a “right-wing terrorist group” in reports on terrorism in 2000 and 2001, citing a thwarted bomb plot in 2001 against a California mosque that involved members of the organization, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported.Times of Israel
• In the United States, the FBI in 2001 labeled the JDL, founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, a violent “right-wing terrorist group.” The group has been inactive in the U.S. for years.The Forward
• In the U.S., the JDL is considered to be a violent, racist and extremist organization, and is on the FBI’s list of terrorist groups.Haaretz

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)

• Here is the actual Domestic Terrorism list, published by the FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt. Of course, the JDL is not on it. So, which secondary source may be considered more reliable than this?
• Regarding secondary sources stating that the JDL is a designated terrorist organization (if any), which agency do they quote as the designator, and what primary source do they refer to?
• Here is a source, providing a very detailed review and referencing multiple other sources on the topic of designated domestic terrorist organizations in the United States:

  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.

• So, at best, we have a conflict between secondary sources which claim that JDL is a terrorist organization (although none explicitly claim that it is designated as such by an authorized government agency) and secondary sources which explain that there is no such list besides the two referenced FBI lists, on which the JDL is certainly not present. Of course, they contradict the primary sources too (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 - it doesn't take much education to determine that the JDL is not present on FBI's Domestic Terrorism list). In addition, we still have no sources supporting category inclusion, do we? --Wiking (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• The FBI source is also from 2001, the updated FBI source makes no mention of the JDL anyway, so inclusion would be UNDUE and BIAS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• I removed it from the lead and left it as it was that the FBI classified it as extremist right wing, which is how the TEXT of the document classified the JDL in 2001. I think anything else is UNDUE and BIAS especially in the lead and especially in 2016 since the FBI's documents no longer specify the JDL as such. I checked the recent documents and they make no mention of the JDL at all so mentioning that the JDL WAS classified may not even warrant a mention in the lead at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think we should remove the FBI part entirely since that is from 2001 and no other mention has the JDL and just leave in the SPLC. All the secondary sources are using the 2001 FBI document which would be undue so that would preclude inclusion as well, certainly in the lead but we could include in the history section. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think SPLC is given undue weight as is. Their characterization is an opinion, not a fact. I think the appearance in the FBI report is very significant, but should be dated properly and characterized as it is in source: as "a violent extremist Jewish organization" (and dated, of course). If we also discuss the chart from that report in the article (certainly not in the lead), we can quote that Figures include terrorist incidents, suspected terrorist incidents, and preventions, (The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.), otherwise we violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; as far as all secondary sources misinterpreting this quote, I suspect many of them took it from this exact Wikipedia article which we are now editing rather than from the report directly. It should be easy enough to check though, all we have to do is find the date when this statement was first introduced here and see that all referenced newspaper articles were published later, and none prior to that edit. Although not 100% proof, it would be in perfect agreement with WP:COMMON and, as you pointed out, per WP:NEWSORG, Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing. --Wiking (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

    Well, I modified the SPLC with the most current wording of the SPLC website, based on the SPLC report. I think we can include the SPLC, even though it is an opinion. I would rather have the SPLC than the FBI in the lead considering the SPLC is current and the FBI is from 2001. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

• I agree with you on both points regarding categorization: that the categorization of domestic terrorist organization is likely not appropriate and that it should be discussed elsewhere. I'd like to note though that there is a number of designated foreign terrorist organizations, both by the US and by Canada, and the geographic breakdown was likely intended by the location of the designator rather than the location of the organization. If this could be clarified, then the issue of categorization would not even come up, as there are plenty of reliable sources for designated FTO, and the JDL is not on them (but Kach and Kahane Chai are). --Wiking (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism and other illegal activities

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717111554/http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/hstoll/research/Israeli_Election_Results.xls to http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/hstoll/research/Israeli_Election_Results.xls

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103121134/http://www.jdl.org:80/index.php/about-jdl/faqs to http://www.jdl.org/index.php/about-jdl/faqs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103121134/http://www.jdl.org:80/index.php/about-jdl/faqs to http://www.jdl.org/index.php/about-jdl/faqs/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Should this organization still be considered "Right Wing" as posted?

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)

Considering the fact that they were a hardcore zionist group and allied with far-right groups such as the EDL as well as being avowed anti-communists, I think it's fair to call them right wing. In addition, the Soviet Union with much further left than pretty much all countries at the time. JRizzled (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926205341/http://www.adl.org/presrele/extremism_72/4016_72.asp to http://www.adl.org/presrele/extremism_72/4016_72.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613034901/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/12/12/jdl.arrests/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/12/12/jdl.arrests

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

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)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

JDL Kicked off Twitter

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)

Questionable early funding

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)

category: anti-islam sentiment etc

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)

This article covers violent acts against Muslims. Not just the group. nableezy - 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry but this makes no sense. This article is quite obviously about a group, an organisation as the lede says, and category:anti-Islam sentiment says “It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Islam.” I’m happy to go ahead with a RFC to re-evaluate consensus on the category but the issue is not so easily waved away as you make it look like. Mvbaron (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Inactive?

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)

I'm wondering the same thing. There website is inactive, and I can't find any media coverage from the past few years. Marquardtika (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's something that might be useful. Marquardtika (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

update

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)

Ben Gvir's party is Jewish Power ... is that related to the JDL? Sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

__________ 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)

I don't see the need for this. It clearly states the founding year in the lede just a few sentences down. The info about the terror classification is important enough of a point to have been mentioned right at the top, and the historical info can be found shortly thereafter. StonyBrook _babble 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)