Talk:Jewish Defense League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jewish Defense League article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] JDL website

The Jewish Defense Leagues website is comical, not only do they express their hate for coloured people but they also diss many popular black rappers. It is an EXTREMLY funny website, I don't see how they are defending Jew's though, but an Arab Defense League is much needed to protect against violent and racist Jew's as well.

JDL members have performed major services to the community such as providing escorts to elderly and disabled Jews. Few if any of the establishment Jewish organizations do much more than create red tape. Unfortunately,the press has taken several isolated incidents involving folks using the name of the group and blown them completely out of proportion

The JDL deserves recognigtion by the community for the services they provide

Would you say the same about Hamas who also give help to the poor and elerly? // Liftarn

I think JDL, Hamas and other terrorist organisation *do* deserve recognition for their social services. This would add some complexity to the oversimplified image of terrrorist organisations as simply 'evil'.

Regarding the statements made in the first paragraph - If you are going to berate our website, the least you could do would be to provide a link so the readers can make up their own minds. We provide verifiable and accurate information of interest to Jews everywhere. I encourage the readers to decide for themselves. Our website may be found at: http://jdl.org.il. You assert that we express hatred for other ethnic groups. I challenge you to prove your assertion. Black Rappers? "An Extremely funny websiste"? What planet are you on? We only defend Jews and Jewish interests against anti-Semites like yourself (you have made your feelings evident). --Bill Maniaci 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The offensive material was removed because the links given did not support the accusation that the Jewish Defense League is or was a terrorist organization. Additionally, the links provided contained nothing of evidentiary value to indicate that the Jewish Defense League was in fact the perpetrator of various crimes to which the author alludes. The only and yet unsubstantiated reference to the JDL as a “proscribed” terrorist organization came from the mouth of a FBI field agent who admitted later that the statement she made was entirely her own “Opinion” and did not reflect the official position of the FBI, the State Department, or any other Governmental agency regarding the Jewish Defense League. So, in the future, I suggest that you have your ducks in a row before you defame an entire organization and its membership.--Bill Maniaci 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)--Bill Maniaci 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

The motivation for JDL attacks against the PLO, Iraqis, Iranians and a Waffen-SS veteran are obvious

Aside from the fact that I don't think we should ever call anything "obvious", the motivations are not at all obvious to me. Many different possible motivations spring to mind, including both religious and political ones. DanKeshet

[edit] Terrorist

I also view the JDL as terrorist. Though I realize it doesn't add any credibility to my argument, I am from a Jewish family.

The US State Depertment's official terrorist organization list ([[1]]) does not include the JDL (it does however include a Jewish group by the name of 'Kahane Chai'?), which is why I removed the original unattributed comment. I personally agree that the JDL is a terrorist group, but unless it can be attributed to some authority (to make it NPOV) it should't be in the article. stewacide

See the last link, from the WRMEA website. It is a long list of terrorist acts which are attributable to the JDL, compiled by the U.S. State Department and the FBI. Stone_put_to_sky

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19 Meir Kahane formed Kach and its forerunner, Kahane Chai. JDL is described as the forerunner of the Kach movement. Kach and Kahane Chai are considered terrorist organizations by the Israel Cabinet.

Same founder, same beliefs, same movement, same actions. Do we really need an explicit statement from the U.S. government saying that the words "Jewish Defense League" represent a terrorist group? cprompt

Considering how high-profile the JDL is, I would think that if the US government considered it a terrorist group they'd say so explicitly - why they don't I have no idea (perhaps because it's a home-group embarrassment? or maybe because it's no longer functional as an organization?). stewacide

The US State Department's list mentioned above is a list of foreign terrorist organizations. The JDL, being an American domestic terrorist group, is therefore ineligible for inclusion in this list. GCarty

The JDL is Kahane Chai's American branch. They were organized by the same people, share many of the same members, and work with the same political groups and police agencies (Mossad, foremost); as such, both the State Department and the FBI consider each to be different manifestations of the same organizations. Thus, i am changing the wording back to include the terrorist references.Stone_put_to_sky

Comment: The quote in the first paragraph regarding the FBI can not stand without better sourcing than the Mary Doran testimony. Her comment on the JDL was an offhand remark in long testimony regarding Al Qaeda. She starts her testimony by stating:

I am removed from the policy and administrative decision-making processes that have defined the scope and conduct of the FBI's investigation into AL QAIDA.

She is a self-described "street-level" agent. Her words can therefore be viewed as an interpretation of the FBI stance, but as she was not responsible for setting FBI policy, nor was she testifying on the FBI's behalf regarding the JDL, I am changing the phrase to reflect the source. If someone can find a better source regarding FBI policy, by all means change it back. --JJay 21:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changed wording

Why I changed the wording:

Does he strike you as the sort to suicide?
Ever tried to kill yourself with one of those disposable-razor blades? Why d'ya think jails provide them?

Of course he could've jumped, having discovered the blade was useless...

>>He was too gutless to face the music.

The article on the Jewish Defense League, as it stands on December 22, 2004, I believe, is not written from a fully neutral point of view. Please follow my case (given below) before dismissing this statement out of hand. I am not a regular contributor to wikipedia, so I would also like to ask how I should (further) address this.

The article (as stands) consists of 6 sections with a total of 12 paragraphs and an additional link section.

It is broken down as follows:

[edit] Section 1

Section 1: Introductory section: This section states:

"The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a highly controversial Jewish activist movement.... The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group, has added the JDL to its list of watched groups."

The first sentence of the first paragraph is probably true (from almost any person's viewpoint). The second and third sentence are what the JDL itself claims that it was formed to do. It is fully appropriate to state what an organization iteself claims to be. However, the opposing side must also be given as well - and preferably in the same introductory section. However, the article then continues on with a full paragraph (the second paragraph) of "self described" JDL goals - a full 11 lines. Only in the third paragraph is any opposing viewpoint given. This opposing viewpoint is given very briefly (5 lines vs. 16 lines), and also in a very peculiar manner (please see below).

Also, I have not seen many (if any) wikipedia articles on any subject matter that use a such long quote (in any context).

The third paragraph claims that many others see the JDL as extremist and that many other Jewish organizations do not have ties with it. It then goes on to state that the "controversial anti-hate group", the Southern Poverty Law Center, has added it to its list of watched groups. The problem here is that the only anti-JDL viewpoint that is specifically mentioned here that of the SPLC, and that the SPLC is referred to as being "controversial". Firstly, many organizations and people have made profoundly negative statements about the JDL, including the Anti-Defamation League (whose link is given at the bottom of the page) and a number of prominent Jewish leaders . Why are these not listed (other than the FBI)? They are not listed anywhere in the actual article.

The second problem is that an un-informed neutral reader who reads that a "controversial" SPLC has added the JDL to its list of "watch groups" is very likely to summarily conclude that the JDL, is in fact, not deserving of being called a watched group (or deserving of its "controversy"), if this article is all that he/she sees. Remember that the SPLC viewpoint is the only opposing viewpoint specifically given. A truly neutral article should not result in an uninformed neutral reader being much more likely to take one side than the other on the subject matter.

Also, a number of organizations have called the JDL a terrorist organization (correctly or otherwise). Why is this not mentioned at all here? The next section ("Alleged Terrorism") does address the issue. However, in most articles about alleged terrorist organizations, the fact that it is an alleged terrorist organization is usually stated at the very beginning.

The SPLC is not "controversial" with any mainstream political groups. Its activities in monitoring Stateside hate groups is widely respected by law enforcement and mainstream government agencies alike. I am removing the "controversial" and replacing it with "well-respected". Stone_put_to_sky

[edit] Section 2

Section 2: "Alleged Terrorism"

"JDL members have been accused of a number of terrorist acts."

The phrasing here can be interpreted as meaning that only a few JDL members commit terrorist acts. While this may be true, in light of the rest of the article, I do feel that this line may not be the best way to state the subject matter.

"In some cases an anonymous caller would claim JDL responsibility for an incident, which was subsequently denied by JDL leadership. Often organization officials would say that, although they had nothing to do with the act themselves, they were pleased the attacks had occurred."

These lines are from the JDL's viewpoint (they are either statements that the JDL made, or one fact that is favorable to the ADL). Again, nothing wrong with the JDL's viewpoint or facts favoring it, but again the opposing viewpoint is only given one line (of JDL members being "accused") and an off-site link (in the preceding sentence).

This article frequently refers to negative statements about (or actions taken against) the JDl as being "alleged terrorism"(section 2 title), of "members being accused" (section 2, first line), as being "charged with conspiracy", and being "accused of planning". While these indeed are accusations and allegations, the use of such terms repeatedly would seem to suggest that these are only accusations and allegations - that these accusations are, in fact, false.. If a neutral reader should walk away with any conclusion at all, it should be a neutral one that the JDl is "controversial" (as stated in the first line of the article) - not that the negative statements being made against are all false. Please do not consider this to be nitpicking - sometimes the exact wording of an article does convey very different meanings.

"In reference to the 1985 death of Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) official Alex Odeh, JDL International Chairman Irv Rubin said Odeh "got what he deserved." Some of the original suspects named fled to Israel. The JDL has always insisted the attack was committed by others, possibly fellow Arabs who were disenchanted over Odeh's comparatively moderate stance. The FBI has never been able to prove its allegations against the organization; the crime remains unsolved."

This the last paragraph that concerns alleged terrorism accustations against the JDL. It lists one case in which the FBI was not able to prove its allegations and convict the JDL member. There are a number of other cases involving JDl members allegedly committing acts of terrorism, and some of these cases did lead to convictions. Please see the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) link at the bottom of this page. Why are these cases not mentioned here, even in brief. One case is mentioned (again, in the next section - Section 4), but please read about Section 4 below.

I am aware that the ADL and JDL have very strained relationships (by the commentary on both of their websites against each other) and that one should not blindly accept everything that the ADL claims about the JDL. However, the list of arrests and convictions on the ADL website is unlikely to be false because conviction and arrest records are usually public and can be checked up upon. I find it hard to believe that any organization would risk fabricating (or otherwise misrepresenting) such easily verified (or disproven) statements.

JDL members have been accused and convicted of a number of terrorist acts, including bombings and murders. Moreover, convictions are not the only means of assessing guilt; when the FBI monitors a group over the course of thirty years, convictions might be few and far between (because, in the case of the JDL, the members tend to flee to Israel), but a pattern of activity can definitely be catalogued. Convictions of members of the KKK are few and far between, but nobody suspects that they are a terrorist group. Thus, i will alter the wording in this article to reflect the JDL's status as a terrorist organization. Stone_put_to_sky

[edit] Section 3

Section 3: "Defense of Baruch Goldstein"

This is a 16 line paragraph consisting almost entirely of the JDL's defense to Baruch Goldstein.

Again, this the JDL's viewpoint in its own words for a second full paragraph.

Also, why is this section on Baruch Goldstein (who massacred 29 Arabs) and his massacre, contain a lengthy passage describing Arabs "yelling" slogans of "Slaughter the Jew", Goldstein losing "30 friends in the last few years", and "Arabs hoarding food". If Goldstein did in fact massacre 29 Arabs, why is this section not about that massacre itself?

::==Comment from the JDL==

[edit] The Jewish Defense League Does Not Condone The Actions of Baruch Goldstein

Regarding the assertion that the JDL supports the reprehensible act of terrorism committed by Dr. Goldstein; The paragraph that is quoted in the section described above was taken from the website of a single JDL Chapter in Los Angeles (operated by Irv Rubin's Widow). That Chapter did not speak for the Jewish Defense League. We do not support terrorisim of any kind, and because of their radical points of view and ridiculous statements (and other reasons) the JDL Board of Directors revoked that Chapter's charter and their members were removed from the JDL. We took action to have their website taken down. We have sued them in Federal Court to prevent them from using our name or logo. Every organization has bad apples and we are doing our best to build a JDL which is responsive to the challenges faced by Jews and Jewish Communities post 9/11. If a Police Officer is charged with domestic violence, does that make all Cops Wife-beaters? Of course not I would point out once more that many of our leadership are active and retired law enforcement and military. We are dedicated and respected members of our communities and do not deserve to be unfairly categorized because of the actions of a few. Does a member of Congress who is convicted of a felony make all members of Congress felons? We have no members who are terrorists or criminals. I challenge anyone to name one member of the present Jewish Defense League who is suspected of, or under investigation for any violent crime, felony, or misdemeanor. If someone applies for JDL membership, a thorough background investigation is conducted to weed out those who would reflect adversely on the JDL by their membership. We are very selective and if you are a bad apple, your application will be rejected. Remember the Teamsters Union and the racketeering convictions of Jimmy Hoffa? Can you say today that the Teamsters Union is a criminal enterprise or that their leadership are mobsters? To do so would bring an immediate lawsuit for slander or libel. --Bill Maniaci 22:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section 4

Section 4: Imprisonment and Death of Irv Rubin:

"On December 12, 2001, Irv Rubin, JDL International Chairman, and Earl Krugel, a member of the organization, were charged with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. The two were accused of planning attacks on Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa's office and on the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California. Rubin and Krugel were arrested as part of a sting operation, after the FBI's agent provocateur, Danny Gillis, delivered explosives to Krugel's home in Los Angeles. Importantly, the JDL notes no explosive devices were manufactured, and no one was harmed."

"Agent provocateur" is, to my knowledge, not an actual FBI position or role. Also, "agent provocateur", especially witn regards to undercover police work, has a very negative connotation. Many people believe (falsely or not - falsely in my opinion) that "provocative" sting operations are not a good thing and have very negative feelings about them.

The last sentence reads: "Importantly, the JDL notes no explosive devices were manufactured, and no one was harmed."

Why is only this sentence (which contains a JDL claim) described as being "important", while the FBI's viewpoints in the preceding sentences not described as being "important"? This is "editorializing".

"The organization maintains the ordeal was caused by rogue elements within the FBI, which conspired to neutralize the JDL by infiltrating the organization, implicating its members and imprisoning them unjustly. Furthermore, members claim the FBI targeted Rubin in a bid to demonstrate even-handedness to Arabist interests in the aftermath of September 11."

This is more of the JDL's viewpoint. The FBI's counterclaims (they must have some against a claim of "rogue elements" in the FBI!) are not mentioned.

Also, these are very heavy claims that JDL is making about the FBI. Is there any proof of either FBI "rogue elements", or of a deliberate FBI "target[ing] of Rubin in a bid to demonstate even-handness to Arabist interests..."?

By the way, what is an "Arabist"?

"JDL officials state they are determined to keep the organization alive in spite of the profound loss of their potent and dynamic chairman, Irv Rubin. The Jewish Defense League contends it remains a vibrant, militant force, seeing strong growth in the United States and abroad."

Although this paragraph is what the JDL states itself (and its second leader) to be, why is the death of Rubin described as a "profound loss" of a "potent and dynamic chairman", and the organization described as being a "vibrant, militant force"? These are all words with fairly positive connotations - which is O.K, taken by themselves. However, why, in this article, is the JDL (and its members) described (at least some of the time) with positive connotations and descriptions, while its detractors are repeatedly described with negative connotations (the "controversial" SPLC and the "accusing" and "allegating" FBI)?

[edit] Section 5

Section 5: "See also"

This section contains a link to Kahanism.

Kahanism is the political movement founded by Rabbi Kahane. Rabbi Meir Kahane is the founder and first chairman of the JDL. Why is he merely treated with one line in the first paragraph and a link? Why is he not discussed at all in this article?

[edit] Section 6

Section 6: Links

As of December 22th, the 4th (AAI) and 6th (Salon article) links do not work. I realize that this is not the fault of the author of this article, but this should be at least mentioned.

[edit] General conclusions

General Conclusions:

1) The pro-JDL position is given substantially more space and time that is the opposing side. The space is nowhere near equal. Also, the statements made against the pro-JDL position are sometimes not given in the same place as the pro-JDL statement (please see above).

2) The wording of several parts of this article is very peculiar (please see my discussion above for specific examples).

3) There is much use of negative connotations about the detractors of the JDL ("controversial" SPLC, "accusations" against the JDL, the mentioning of "Arabs shouting "slaughter the Jew" in a section about a massacre of Arabs/, etc). They are never referred to neutrally or positively. There is also some (albeit, less) use of positive connotations when referring to the JDL - its statement is referred to as "important" while the oppositions' are not, the JDL being referred to as "potent and dynamic" while its detractors are never referred to as such).

4) There are a number of important facts and important negative viewpoints concerning the "controversial" JDL that are not discussed (in the actual article):

a) Rabbi Kahane - How can the founder of such a "controversial" organization be mentioned only in passing?

b) The numerous alleged acts (mentioned earlier) that JDL members have been arrested for and (in some cases) convicted of (the ADL list mentioned earlier - again read my statements above about why these cases should be taken seriously - and not as mere ADL propaganda)?

Why are only two cases mentioned (the one in section 2 in which the FBI failed to prove its allegations, and the Irv Rubin section)?

c) There are a number of highly controversial slogans that JDL members (and its first leader, Rabbi Kahane) have used, repeatedly. These include statements like: "For every Jew, a 22" and "Keep Jews alive with a 45". (The "22" and "45" refer to particular types of handguns). This is an important fact about this organization. Why is it omitted?

All in all, I would not describe this article as one that is neutral in point of view.

I am the writer of the previous entry in this discussion. I did not realize that there is no divider between entries.

My comments start with: "The article on the Jewish Defense League..."

They end with the line "All in all, I would not describe this article as one that is neutral in point of view.

Happy web-surfing.

Thanks for your comments above, anonymous user. The best way to proceed in Wikipedia is to be bold and just make the corrections yourself, rather than write an essay on what others should do. FYI, I added the sentence: "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group, has added the JDL to its list of watched groups."

I added almost exactly the same line to every group that the SPLC lists that we have articles for. The SPLC is controversial, and it seemed like a fair way of indicating that fact. If you'd like to remove that qualifier in this article, I wouldn't object. -Willmcw 22:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Censored paragraph

Why is this paragraph being censored? It's not even an issue of POV or NPOV. It is just about the history of JDL after Rubin was assassinated. The majority of JDL belongs to Finberg's group.

JDL members proclaim their determination to sustain the organization despite Rubin's death and Krugel's convictions. Following Rubin's death, JDL split into rival factions. Rubin's widow Shelley claims to head the legitimate JDL while the rest of JDL claims that she is only the head of a rogue chapter of JDL. The rest of JDL, led by new Chairman Bill Maniaci, has even taken her to court over this. Maniaci has since been succeeded by Matthew (Moshe) S. Finberg as JDL Chairman. Some people think Finberg's group is made up all though this has not been proven. JDL claims that it remains a vibrant, militant force, with strong growth in the United States and abroad.

Do you have a source for the information? -Willmcw 20:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contraversial statement, POV

JDL.ORG has been suspended. JDL.ORG.IL is the real site. JDL.ORG.IL probably won the court case.

[edit] Discussion

The fact is that the JDL is considered one of the most active and violent terrorist groups in the U.S, by both the FBI and the U.S. State Department. I will continue to re-edit this page until it includes these facts. The JDL is and has long been responsible for many bombings, murders, and violent actions against multiple groups and individuals in the U.S. If there are people out there who are uncomfortable with these facts, then they should contact the JDL -- not insist on altering a factual history of their activities. -- Stone 30 September 2005

These are wild libelous accusations that have no place in the article Kuratowski's Ghost 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have restricted myself to simple factual statements. The JDL is listed as a terrorist organization by both the FBI and the U.S. State Department. The founder of the JDL admitted its use of bombings and murders as a political tool. Many members of its organization have been jailed and convicted of terrorist crimes. I have furthermore provided a link to an article (indeed, the entire website provides plenty more) from a prominent foundation comprised of former State Department Foreign Service Officers to substantiate these claims.

If these facts are not included in the article, then it is incomplete. There is nothing libellous about simply stating obvious truth. Stone 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

I have re-edited this page twice now to bring it more into line with the mainstream understanding of the JDL, and someone has re-edited it back to the grand plaudits that they prefer.

Seven times, now. The last three, the culprit has also removed the discussion messages.Stone 04:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Nine, now. I suggest that we reach a happy medium, because i'm perfectly happy to keep this up indefinitely. Stone 2 October 2005

New edit. I have simply retained the basic wording of the original, while introducing the fuller context in alternate paragraphs. The structure is simple: 1, 2, 1, 2. Sections that correspond to "1" are statements from the original version, which correspond with the JDL's description of itself and its public rhetoric; sections that correspond with "2" are responses to the JDL position which correspond with the FBI and State Department's views on the JDL, and provide a (scant few) examples of the (many instances of) violence to which the JDL has been publicly connected. Stone 09:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

[edit] Page on Protected Status

The page has been put on protected status for no good reason that i can see. I have received virtually no response to my repeated postings on the talk page about the edits i have introduced. I have just requested that the page be taken off of protected mode. The only responses i have received so far have been vague reiterations of "NPOV". I certainly know what that is, and it's obvious that this page as it stands ain't it. To quote from Jimbo Wales' summary on the NPOV guidelines:

September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem).

First, the current page is certainly not the majority position on the JDL. While it may be the majority position in some communities, most people in the U.S. -- including most Jews -- consider the JDL to be a terrorist organization. However well-intentioned its founding principles may have sounded, the fact remains that this is an organization that is monitored by the FBI, the State Department, the SPLC, and informally by mulitiple other human rights groups.

Second, the JDL is "officially proscribed" by the FBI, which means that anyone involved with the group can not get security clearances within the U.S. government and cannot hold official government posts requiring those clearances.

Finally, these facts are easily verifiable. So regardless of how one views the JDL personally -- or whether one is willing to qualify mentioning its status as a terrorist group more because of point one rather than point two -- it is obvious that either a majority view or at the very least a "significant minority" (a label which i'd say the FBI and State Department definitely qualify for) perceive the JDL first and foremost as a U.S. terrorist group.

While there may be some debate about JDL connections to Mossad and details of this or that case, the general consensus in U.S. police agencies and government bodies is that the JDL is a terrorist group and people who are associated with it are not to be trusted with secure U.S. government data. These facts must be mentioned here, or the article is incomplete.

I have provided citations; those have been removed. I have introduced undisputed facts about the JDL that are cited elsewhere in this Wiki; those have been removed also. Each time, the reverts have been perpetrated in the name of "NPOV" -- and yet, the NPOV policy states clearly:

A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source.

The reverts to this page are purposeful omissions of undisputed, readily verifiable facts -- facts which happen to be inconvenient for the JDL and its supporters. There is no justification for maintaining the page as it currently stands.

Stone put to sky 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not indent information on this page; it messes up the formatting when it is displayed. Also, don't erase other users' comments. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If i erased other users' comments it was unintentional. Apparently we've been cross-posting, and i didn't notice that your edits were taking place at the same time i was cleaning up mine. Up above you'll see how i was intending for things to come out; i'm not used to this interface yet -- i have some basic familiarity with HTML and posting on Webcrossing sites -- but i'm gradually getting the hang of it. Stone 18:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

No harm done! Just a friendly reminder. Also, please don't put spaces in front of the *. It has the same effect as a full indent -- it makes it so that the lines don't break properly. If you want to set something off further from the page, just use multiple asterisks (i.e. ****) · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yah, i know, but i like that "telex" look that the plaintext gives. Did that last edit of mine come out looking all screwy on your side?Stone 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Well, please don't do it that way. It makes many browsers not pagewrap. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'm wondering, though -- is it possible to correct for the pagewrap problem like this: ??? Stone 18:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

No, it still doesn't wrap properly. Different people use different browers and have different screen sizes -- using hard returns in places that look fine to you doesn't necessarily translate to everybody, so it's best to use normal formatting. I'm removing the test. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

As i have stated before, repeatedly: i have introduced substantianted, sourced facts, and they have been summarily reverted to the previous version with no comment. As the NPOV guidlines clearly state, disagreement with sourced, factual edits are no excuse for summary deletion; they should instead be approached as occasion for discussion and negotiation of a neutral viewpoint amenable to all contributors.

That has not been the case here, and the file histories clearly show it. This page should be taken off of unprotected status now. Stone 18:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

You edits make clearly false claims like the statement that JDL is part of Kahance Chai - Kahane Chai was disbanded long ago. You also state Kahane Chai was founded by Meir Kahane which is nonsense as it was founded after his death. Then there is that nonsense about JDL working with Mossad and bizarre accusations of murder etc. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You and i both know that Kahane Chai is what Kach became after Kahane's death; the Wikipedia entry lists the two together, as here Kahane Chai, and virtually all mainstream articles that treat the subject explicitly link Kahane Chai as simply a mutation of Kach. The second sentence of the article states "After [Kahane's] assassination in 1990, [Kach] split into two movements, Kach and Kahane Chai ("Kahane Lives"). This article deals with all three groups." There is nothing bizarre about stating that JDL involves itself in murder; in 1985, the FBI reported that the JDL has been responsible for at least 7 murders. In the most high-profile case, a JDL member was extradited from Israel and convincted for sending a letter bomb that killed a secretary and on suspicion of involvement in the murder of Alex Odeh, but because the latter case was not as strong the decision was made to only pursue if a prosecution was not secured in the first case. Kahane himself admitted JDL responsibility for the bomb that killed Sol Hurok, an impresario, by saying he felt "horrible" about the bomb because a fellow Jew had died, and -- with Rubin -- stopped only just short of admitting involvement in the Odeh case. Then, of course, there's Baruch Goldstein -- a member of both Kahane Chai and the JDL.

It is easily demonstrated that the JDL coordinated its activities with Shamir's Mossad, as well. In 1969 -- less than a year after its foundation -- the JDL initiated a campaign of violence against the Soviet government which included bombing its Aeroflot offices, bombing its cultural offices, and leaving repeated graffiti threats on its walls. Kahane himself admitted to this in a Washington Post article some ten+ years later. What is most remarkable about these events is that they occurred at the same time as similar events in other countries, and Mossad coordination is largely unquestioned. The Israeli government was negotiating with the Soviets for an ease on Jewish emigration policies; to quote a footnoted entry from the WRMEA website, "The goal was to strain U.S.–Soviet relations, calculating that Moscow would ease the strain by allowing increased numbers of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel."

So, to summarize: i've got the FBI on my side with regards to the murders and Mossad involvement (footnoted, multiple, academic/government sources); i've got Kahane's own admissions/bragging, with newspaper quotes; and i've got Wikipedia's own entry regarding Kach/Kahane Chai, not to mention the history of JDL suspects who flee to Israel and then join up with Kach/Kahane Chai or one of its sister groups. Stone 04:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Post-script: my edits never claimed that the JDL was "part of" Kahane Chai, but rather that JDL was "the American manifestation of the Israeli political party Kach/Kahane Chai" and that this is evident from its very founding (by the same people who founded Kach) and the numerous JDL founders and members who have fled the U.S. to become leaders and footsoldiers in Kahane Chai and its sister organizations. Stone 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

And as explained in the article on Kahanism, JDL is not actively involved in Kahanist politics. Neither Kach nor its rival organization Kahane Chai exist any more. You also fail to distinguish between alleged activities of infividuals associated with the JDL and verifiable acts carried out in the name of the JDL.

Here's a suggestion. In the interest of fairness, how about if every time people who voted Republican or Democrat commit a crime we update the respective articles on those parties with large sections insinuating that such acts are Republican or Democrat acts and the main activities of those parties? :P Kuratowski's Ghost 10:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a real suggestion. Stone, since you're the one seeking changes to the current article, I would recommend you take it piece by piece. Don't regurgitate every single issue you have with the article and expect them all to be resolved at once. This is obviously not going to be a quick process. Why don't you say what you object to in the first paragraph and then take it from there. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A note from a sysop on talk page usage

Please place new comments at the BOTTOM of this page. Please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~; it will automatically fill in your user information and a timestamp. Please don't delete other peoples' comments from this talk page, or it will result in a block for vandalism. Above all else, play nice, follow the rules, and work toward a consensus on the issues you've been edit warring over. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Passage: The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a Jewish movement aimed at protecting Jewish people and property from anti-Semitism.

Discussion:

Stone, I'll get you started. Please post here what changes you think need to be made to the introduction. Please be prepared to bring to this discussion any sourcing needed to back up points you would like to make. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

O.k. First paragraph: the JDL is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department, and has been under surveillance by the FBI as a terrorist organization for over 30 years. These are undisputable facts. Stone 20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for these two assertions? A link to where the State Department has it classified such, and a link to how long it's been classified? · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations#Jewish More later. Stone 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no idea whether that article properly sourced the addition of the JDL. Can you provide a non-Wikipedia source for this, please? · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Homeland Security" MIPT website lists the JDL as a terrorist group. http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=183 In 2004, FBI agent refers to JDL as a "proscribed terrorist group" in Congressional testimony: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm WRMEA article which quotes a 1985 FBI report listing the JDL as a terrorist group responsible for at least 7 deaths in acts of domestic terrorism (MIPT website doesn't list acts of domestic terrorism by the JDL until after 1997); article includes a rough outline of the Alex Odeh case as well as mentioning Israel's refusal to extradite multiple JDL/Kach members who had been indicted on acts of terrorism (with detailed footnotes): http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0799/9907081.html That should be more than enough. Stone 06:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

MIPT is the "National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism," a nonprofit group, it is not the Homeland Security Department. Perhaps HLS has said it's a terrorist group, but this link doesn't show that to be the case. The second link is a good one, but the third is not -- referring me to footnotes the text of which I can't examine is useless. It does look, though, like the intro should address this in some fashion. Not doing so is not representing the fullness of opinions on this group. It's just a matter of finding adequate sourcing and couching the language properly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

From the MIPT website:

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing terrorism on U.S. soil or mitigating its effects. MIPT was established after the April 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, and it is funded through the Department of Homeland Security's Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP).

The United States Congress directed MIPT to conduct “research into the social and political causes and effects of terrorism” through our automated information systems and to “serve as a national point of contact for antiterrorism information sharing among Federal, State and local preparedness agencies, as well as private and public organizations dealing with these issues.” MIPT firmly believes that the accurate dissemination of knowledge on terrorism is a critical ingredient for combating terrorism. Serving the needs of emergency responders, counterterrorism practitioners, policymakers, and the public, MIPT offers access to a wealth of information resources including its knowledge base initiatives, its website, and its library collection. Visit the MIPT Homepage.

Funded by Homeland Security, and receives its directives from Congress. That seems like a pretty authoritative source to me. Stone 17:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Even so, you can't say that the Homeland Security Department is the one asserting these things just because HLS is their funding source. Amtrak is funded by Congress through the DOT, but you wouldn't attribute a statement made by Amtrak to the DOT, you'd attribute it to Amtrak. Similarly, the Congressional Research Service is funded by Congress through the Library of Congress, but you wouldn't attribute a CRS report to the Library of Congress, you'd attribute it to the CRS. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A) "Homeland Security" in scare quotes. I attributed the facts to the MIPT website. To use your example, while i might not credit the CRS with speaking for "the Library of Congress", i think it would be well justifiable to refer any doubters of CRS credibility to the fact that it is funded and officially linked to the LOC. As much as i detest the Office of Homeland Security and their satellites, the very least we can presently attribute to that stellar array is accurate information about terrorist groups.

B) It seems odd that you say "referring me to footnotes the text of which I can't examine is useless." It seems odd that anyone should expect any and all information to be easily and freely gleaned from the web. The Internet's most valuable information is already quite expensive, and when dealing with a group like the JDL -- which has a vast amount of money at its disposal, thanks to some very wealthy and powerful backers -- it seems a rather biased standard to hold an entry against. My guess is that most of the entries regarding Islamic terrorists in the U.S. are newspaper articles that don't have any footnotes, that are simply quotations from "official government sources." Are we to suspect these, then? The WRMEA article has three or four references to details from articles by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Nation, books by a well-respected Middle East analyst (Friedman), an FBI report, and State Department documents. Unless one goes the long and difficult road of actually disproving WRMEA credibility (something some groups have been working at for many years and have yet to succeed at, i can assure you) then there is no justifiable reason to suspect its sources. I really don't understand why the WRMEA article should remain suspect beyond the typical, run-of-the-mill scepticism one greets y'r average magazine or local newspaper article -- and which typically receives a pass on Wikipedia.

What really baffles me right now is that the page as it currently stands links to an article by the American Free Press; one can't find a less-scholarly, more suspect source of information and speculation than that. Meanwhile, folks here're wondering at the credibility of the WRMEA?

C) I'm looking right now at a list of 9 or 10 different entries off of government websites that specifically mention the JDL as a terrorist organization; unfortunately, that's "original research" and frowned upon by Jimbo's guidelines for Wikipedia entries; moreover, most are comments within a context of eight or ten relevant sentences, themselves within web-pages that are thousands of words long; in other words, these are difficult references to find for the average user, who typically wouldn't understand them without context (i use Firefox and already understand the issues, so it's easy for me to search-and-apply). Unfortunately, unlike Arab organizations, there are lots of people in the U.S. media who don't mind neglecting the uglier aspects of Israeli politics, whereas in the post-9/11 U.S. Arab-hating has virtually become synonymous with the good-patriotism-that-sells-more-newspapers. Thus, the JDL hasn't gotten nearly the attention that Hamas has -- even though Hamas has never been guilty of perpetrating any terrorist crime on U.S. soil, whereas the JDL has been associated with many. I'm sure i could bring up a gazillion different crank-sites from organizations like the National Front, Strom-bringer, or whatever those Nazi people call themselves these days, but frankly i'd rather stick to mainstream, credible sources -- and the simple fact of the post-9/11 situation is that it's very easy to find references to Al Qaida and make-believe genealogies linking it to Hamas, the PLO, and Saddam Hussein, but rather more difficult to find details about the past activities of the JDL.

D) There's this page, official FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm, where the JDL is specifically mentioned as a "terrorist organization". There's also a Canadian page that, like the State Department page, lists Kach/Kahane Chai as a "terrorist organization", and all the government organizations i've yet seen (Canadian, U.S. Dpt. of State, U.S. Air Force, FBI, etc) explicitly link it to the JDL. The fact that the JDL isn't listed by the State Department doesn't mean it's not monitored by them (which is what my original entry stated, i believe; computer crashed a couple of days ago and i lost six months of work, as well as my backups of the last article). What's undeniable is that the State Department and FBI have explicitly linked the two and have been working together to monitor Kach/Kahane Chai & JDL for several decades, now -- virtually since the JDL's inception, as this page demonstrates: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/v/42664.htm. Stone 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

You said above that the State Department has declared it a terrorist group. Can you please point me to a source that backs up that assertion? Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As i've just written, the State Department has been monitoring the JDL through the FBI since the early seventies; officially, it has no jurisdiction over domestic organizations. Again, i can find memos on the web which prove the State Department's interest, but that's "original research" again, and anyway unnecessary since the WRMEA site does a better job of explaining the situation in a more concise manner -- with footnotes -- than the multi-paginated, unformatted pages i'm looking at now do.

more later. i'm going to bed. Stone 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

You can't say the State Department considers it a terrorist organization unless you can back it up with sourcing. I'll add an inline link to the FBI testimony you provided, but I'm taking the State Department out until you can back it up with sourcing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate, i have sourced it; the problem is that the State Department's relationship to domestic organizations and their international links is neither so transparent nor so distant as most folks believe it to be. To make an example, compare the JDL-Kahane Chai relationship to that of Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor currently considered a "terrorist". Kahane Chai is openly listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and for many years it's been publicized by the State Department that the JDL is Kach/Kahane Chai's American backers. Likewise, Sami Al-Arian has never been guilty of any crimes on U.S. soil, but he has apparently raised some money for group's that the State Department considers terrorist, he's gotten visas for known leaders of terrorist groups and so on -- i.e, he's never done anything more than what the JDL has been about since its inception. On the basis of that evidence, Al-Arian's been labelled a terrorist and has been arrested.

Consequently, in the Al-Arian case we see that the opinion of the State Department regarding the JDL's international connections is relevant and, indeed, key to identifying them as a terrorist organization. The State Department has made it quite clear that a) Kach/Kahane Chai is a terrorist organization, and b) they consider the JDL to be its States'-side manifestation (the exact phrase i settled upon in the later edits of the article, i believe). This is made abundantly clear by the links i have provided. In addition to this, the FBI has listed the JDL as a "proscribed organization", and recently begun to refer to them as "terrorist". "Recently", because only relatively recently has the label "terrorist" been shifted from is use in International Law to a formal term used domestically by the FBI. In the '70's and '80's, for instance, actions might be characterized by the FBI as "terrorist", but groups prone to such violence were named as "proscribed" (together along with groups like the Communist Party).Stone 05:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

How does it look to you now? · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Woefully incomplete. No mention is made of the fact that JDL has been under constant surveillance and investigation by the FBI and State Department from its very inception. No mention is made of the fact that it's considered a terrorist organization by the FBI, and no mention is made of its connection to Kahane Chai, which the State Department has listed as a terrorist organization and for which reason the State Department also closely monitors JDL activities. Stone 05:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

I'm sorry, but if you can't provide a source that says explicitly "the State Department considers the JDL to be a terorrist organization," it doesn't get included. All this roundabout doesn't get us anywhere except back to Wikipedia:No original research. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that we're only talking about the intro sentence, which currently reads: The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is an extremist Jewish movement whose stated goal is protecting Jewish people and property from anti-Semitism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers it a proscribed terrorist organization. [1] It clearly says the FBI considers it a terrorist group. You have yet to provide proof that the State Department does as well, and that's never going to be added until you can (please read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not sure about the rest; that was nothing you proposed in our initial discussion. So, given that, what do you think about the sentence? · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is o.k. regarding the FBI. However, it should mention the remarkable consideration the State Department gives the JDL as a consequence of its links to the formally listed terrorist group Kach/Kahane Chai. I have suggested "State Department...considers...JDL the States'-side manifestation of Kahane Chai", but something like "Because of its terrorist activities in the early 70's and its connection to Kahane Chai, the U.S. State Department also continues to closely monitor the JDL," or something like that. The links i have provided back such a statement up. Stone put to sky 06:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Do you have a State Department source that says that they monitor the group? If not, no inclusion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Several of my past edits have avoided saying that the State Department "monitors" the JDL, and so there should be no need for me to find a source to support that position. There are, however, many public statements by many government agencies which demonstrate that the U.S. Government Position regarding JDL and Kach/Kahane Chai is that they are closely related sister organizations founded and led by the same group of people and serving the same political ends for the same Israeli/Jewish political movement. Two of my statements above say far less than you are demanding i prove, and in fact i myself resolved upon one -- with no input from the people who put the page on protected status -- as the final form i'd use to represent my position. That'd be "The State Department considers the JDL to be....", but if you or someone else would like to suggest something different be my guest. Stone 07:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Anyway, there is no "official" FBI report which states that over the last 30 years it's continually monitored the JDL (why in the world would a police agency declare to a collection of criminals that they have begun and are continuing an active investigation?); instead, one must look at the record, which is as incontrovertible in the case of the State Department as it is in that of the FBI (i linked, above, to State Department memos from the early '70's which indicated that it was already, then, monitoring the JDL; there are numerous State Department releases from the '80's which indicate it was keeping an eye on the JDL; in the last two or three years there have been three or four State Department press releases/conferences where the JDL was explicity mentioned, etc). One needs to find secondary sources in order to corroborate such an assertion about the State Department, and there are quite a few out there which state this; but no "original statements" by the State Department. Stone put to sky 08:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

To summarize: The FBI has listed the JDL as an "officially proscribed organization", and has publicly stated that it is considered a terrorist organization. At the very least i have found quotes by the U.S. Department of State, Canadian Government, and U.S. Airforce (and perhaps several other branches of government that i haven't found?) have publicly stated that they consider the JDL to be closely linked to Kach/Kahane Chai, and that Kach/Kahane Chai is a terrorist organization (and formally listed so by the U.S. Dep't of State). I've come across at least one page each from the Canadian Government and, if i remember correctly, an official USAF site that explicitly links the JDL to Kahane Chai and labels it a terrorist organization because of the relationship. These are not irrelevant or immaterial facts, and indicate a broad consensus that the JDL is considered to be a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, i have found no pages from State Department websites which formally list the JDL as a terrorist organization, but then that's to be expected because the U.S. State Department is supposed to concern itself with foreign missions, not domestic ones. Don't you feel that such a preponderance of evidence deserves at least a cursory mention? Stone put to sky 18:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

Thus i suggest something along these lines: "The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is an extremist Jewish movement whose stated goal is protecting Jewish people and property from anti-Semitism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers it a proscribed terrorist organization[1], and many sections of the U.S. and Canadian government consider it the North American manifestation of the Israeli terrorist organzation Kahane Chai." There are numerous pages out there which demosntrate this much to be true, and there should be no need to get an "official" declaration of the JDL's status, or of the State Department comportment towards it in order to be acceptable, no? Stone 00:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

[edit] JDL considered a terrorist group by the FBI

It's not good to protect an article page forever. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen/Ladies;

The Jewish Defense League is not on ANY terrorist list anywhere. I object to the statement that the FBI has listed the JDL as a terrorist organization. Also, if a United States Senator is arrested and convicted for example, of using cocaine. Does that mean that all United States Senators are drug users? When a Congressman is charged with the embezzlement of campaign funds, can we then say that the United States Congress is a den of embezzlers? I hope you get the point. All I am trying to do is to present our side (the JDL) of the story. I have requested that those who blindly hate us to take a look at our web page <http://jdl.org.il>, or our blog: http://jdldotorg.blogspot.com/, or contact me directly: maccabee@charter.net. We have a right to present our viewpoint and our positions. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just another biased rag sheet.--Bill Maniaci 02:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill

This is not about hate. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and we have WP:RULES much stricter than a blog. We neutrally reflect facts and noteworthy scholarly opinions but do not take sides or advocate on their behalf. The FBI link you are removing contains a mention of the JDL. Was it misquoted or outdated? Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

- http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=384 The JDL is not on this list or any other I have found. It should not be said that they are a terrorist group as classified by the FBI, if the FBIdoes not post the list, the state department does. And again, I point out, it is not on the list.

The list published by the State Dept is a list of foreign terrorist organizations only.--Denis Diderot 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Jewish Defense League (JDL) is in no way affiliated with Kach or Kahane Chai. We have no members who hold membership in those organizations. The JDL operates in the Diaspora and does not interfere with the internal politics of the State of Israel. The JDL is not militant enough for Kach and Kahane Chai and the JDL does not condone the methods used by those organizations. Just because the founder of the JDL was involved in the formulation of other organizations after he left the United States does not mean that the original group agrees with the groups formed in Israel. Kach and Kahane Chai are outlawed in israel, the JDL is not. We have had problems in the past and we are working very hard to improve our image. Our members are respected members of the communities in which they live. We are not thugs with baseball bats as some would like the public to believe. All we ask is for fairness in describing our organization. We are not racists, we do not belittle other ethnic groups, we do however recognize that the greatest threat to Western Civilization since Hitler is "Radical Islam".--Bill Maniaci 03:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look at the references, purporting to support the assertion that, It has been deemed an extremist organization and "right-wing terrorist group" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[2] and [3]. Neither references support the assertion that the FBI has officially classified the JDL as a Terrorist Organization. Nor do they support the assertion that the FBI "deems" the JDL to be a terrorist group. Reading the references revealed that the grouping regarding the JDL was apparently only for the purposes and within the context of a particular statistical analysis shown in a particular pie chart. I think it's worth noting that in that "TERRORISM by Group Class 1980 - 2001" pie chart that showed a total of 482 cases, the JDL was the ONLY ONE that received an editorial explanation regarding it's classification in the chart. Think about it. This is no doubt because the JDL is not otherwise so classified. In fact, the report calls "...the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a violent extremist Jewish organization," not a terrorist organization. Compare this to "...the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a terrorist animal rights movement," "... the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a terrorist environmental movement," "... Hizballah, a terrorist organization," etc. From the above it's clear that the FBI do not consider the JDL to be a terrorist organization. The reference does not support the claim. Actually, the reference shows that the FBI does not deem the JDL to be a terrorist organization.

Likewise, in the second reference[4] the FBI declines to refer to the JDL as a terrorist organization. Despite the fact that the term terror is used over 100 times in the document, it is never applied to the JDL.

Also, "The US Government has established four primary counterterrorism lists to serve as tools in the fight against terrorism: The State Sponsors of Terrorism, Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), Executive Order 13224, and the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). Each list has its individual mechanisms, but they all serve to prevent terrorism, punish terrorists and their supporters, and pressure changes in the behavior of designated states and groups." The Jewish Defense League is included in exactly ZERO of these lists. [5] Doright 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you don't seriously think that JDL could be a state and thus on the first list. And I've already pointed out "foreign" isn't domestic, and JDL has been regarded as a domestic terrorist group. Similarly the Executive Order "provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities". Note the word foreign? TEL's stated purpose is to "designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes". "Immigration purposes". There is no "official" FBI list available so that argument has no value. It's clear from the 3 cited references that FBI has deemed the JDL a terrorist group. 2 refs say it explicitly "a right-wing terrorist group"[6] "a proscribed terrorist group" [7] Another source (testimony from the Executive Assistant Director of Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence at the FBI) ontains a list of "success stories" of "disrupting and destroying terrorist threats". [8] "Terrorist threats". The JDL is listed as one example. So please stop this nonsense. --Denis Diderot 06:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will address the cited references and not your original research nor silly rhetoric. I have already shown above that the included quotation, "right-wing terrorist group," is being cited out of context. It’s merely an editorial note to a pie chart. Please read the report. If you do, you will see, in the body of the report, the parallel construnction when the authors first mention an organization they identify the kind of organization (e.g., terrorist). I previously gave a few of the many example in the report. For example, the Animal Liberation Front is called “a terrorist animal rights movement.” This official FBI report FAILS to call the JDL a terrorist group. Yet, it calls many other groups terrorists. Why do you think that is? Furthermore, If you read the referenced report, you’ll understand that it is precisely because the JDL is not identified by the FBI as a Terrorist Group that the authors disclose that for the purposes of creating a single statistical analysis (i.e., pie chart), that they have included the criminal activities of two of its members in the chart. Seriously, why do you think the JDL is the only group specifically mentioned as being included in the pie chart? Try downloading the PDF version of the FBI report. The formating is very helpful and makes it even more clear how absurdly out of context this quote is. I’ve removed the false quotation from the article. Doright 08:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The source of the direct quote is a report from the FBI called "TERRORISM 2000/2001".[9][10] It contains a pie chart where incidents of terrorism are classified by the type of group responsible. The groups are classified according to politics (right-wing, left-wing, special interest). Some groups are classified as international.. Some incidents have been perpetrated by individuals acting alone and are thus classified as individual. Finally for some incidents the group or individual responsible isn't known. These are accordingly classified as unknown. In a comment to this chart the following statement occurs: "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group". Thus it's made clear that the politics of the JDL has been classified as right-wing, which isn't entirely obvious.

An older FBI report, Terrorism in the United States 1999,[11] gives the following definition:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

In the same report:

During the 1970s and early 1980s, at the height of violent antiwar/left-wing activism, there were dozens of terrorist attacks carried out by Jewish extremist groups (such as the Jewish Defense League and the United Jewish Underground) and other extremist ethnic groups (such as the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide).

(The JDL is also listed several times in the "chronology of terrorist activity".) It is thus clear that a group can be described as extremist and terrorist alternately. The one does not preclude the other.--Denis Diderot 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taken my above question seriously. To rebut my above claim that the quotation is out of context, you explain that the Jewish Defense League was the ONLY GROUP specifically mentioned, as being included in the pie chart, BECAUSE the FBI needed to make “… clear that the politics of the JDL has been classified as right-wing, which isn't entirely obvious.” However, there are many organizations for which their pie chart classification are not "entirely obvious." Here are just a few examples, June 9 Organization, Armed Resistance Unit, Aryan Nations, Up the IRS, Inc. Yet, the JDL is the only one singled out. On this basis, your explanation does not hold water and therefore fails to rebut my claim. Doright 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote isn't taken out of context. That expression signifies the use of a quote in a way that makes it appear as if it refers to something which it in fact does not. It is clear that this quote refers to the fact that the JDL has been classified as a right-wing terrorist group. No other interpretation is possible. When I wrote "isn't entirely obvious", I meant of course obvious to someone who knows about the organizations. "Armed Resistance Unit" is an alias for "The May 19th Communist Order" and thus obviously left-wing. Aryan Nations is right-wing. "Up the IRS" was an individual, Dean Harvey Hicks. One would probably have expected the JDL to be classified as "special interest"--Denis Diderot 03:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote is misleading and taken out of context. I’ll again attempt to show you how. But, the funny thing is, I think you actually agree. Recently you said, There appears to be some confusion about what it means to say that FBI has deemed the JDL to be a terrorist group. Therefore it seems misleading to suggest that the JDL would be on such a (non-existing) list if the FBI had deemed it to be a terrorist group, or even that the FBI makes official policy decisions to designate some groups as "terrorist". [[12]] Now, let’s not quibble, you say it’s “misleading” and I say it’s misleading. FYI, context also refers to any perceptions which may be associated with the communication. In other words, context is a "frame" through which we view a message. The inclusion of the quotation in the introduction creates exactly the false impression that you now admit. Further, even using your own definition of ‘out of context,’ (i.e., makes it appear as if it refers to something which it in fact does not) and applying it to your own admission, we both agree that it seems to refer to a (non-existing) list and seems to suggest ‘’’that the FBI makes official policy decisions to designate some groups as "terrorist".’’’ Funny thing is, this is what my original complaint was. ‘’ Neither references support the assertion that the FBI has officially classified the JDL as a Terrorist Organization.’’ [[13]

Also, When you wrote "isn't entirely obvious", I thought you meant of course obvious to the readers of the report and not that you meant experts that know the names and complete backgrounds of every single organization from the last 25 years. You may note that the report is in the form of a USPS mailer that went out to thousands of US citizens. I believe that one is still reasonably left to wonder why the JDL was singled out in this way. I would agree that my explanation, although plausible, is not the only reasonably possible one. Denis, it is a pleasure to work with you on this. I believe a better document is being produced as a result. Respectfully Doright 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy that we now agree on most things. It shows that the Wikipedia process works, at least sometimes :-) Unfortunately I still think you are wrong on this point. As being official statements by a government agency, the FBI reports on terrorism are the closest equivalents to the lists published by the State Dept. (This should be made clearer by adding "according to FBI reports on terrorism" or something like that. I agree with you on this.) As I've explained it wasn't entirely obvious that the JDL should be listed under "right-wing terrorist groups". If you look at older reports, the FBI used various other classifications. Reports from the early 1980s have "Cuban terrorist groups", "Jewish terrorist groups", "Puerto Rican terrorist groups", "Other domestic terrorist groups and individuals", "Other international terrorist groups". In the 1983 report, for example, only one group is listed as a "Jewish terrorist group": Jewish Defense League (JDL).[14] Later in the 1980s the classification becomes "Anti-Castro Cuban", "Jewish", "Left-wing domestic" "Puerto-Rican", "Right-wing domestic", and "Special interest". When Jewish was merged into "Right-wing domestic", there was a need for a comment. This is the explanation. Respectfully, --Denis Diderot 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Benmoshe (Bill Maniaci)

I have slapped a Disputed tag onto this article and am moving the following discussion to this page where it belongs; a debate does not belong on the main article. capitalist 04:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"JDL Rebuttal to the above incorrect information.

The uninformed, or perhaps, anti-Semitic individual who insists upon misrepresenting the JDL as a "terrorist group”, asserts that the JDL had been so designated by the FBI. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, it is a blatant lie and a deliberate liable. If you follow the links he gives (above) you will not find any mention of the Jewish Defense League as being a "terrorist" organization. The Jewish Defense League is NOT nor has it ever been a terrorist organization.--Bill Maniaci 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)--Bill Maniaci 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)--Bill Maniaci 03:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The liberal left wing (so called main stream) Jewish groups fear the Jewish Defense League because we are the ONLY Jewish Organization whose members will not hesitate to put themselves in harms way to protect Jews, Jewish property and Jewish interests. The JDL is not about making money or giving donors stars for fat gifts. We are about boots on the street in defense of the Jewish people. We can be confrontational and if in so doing you label us as “extremist”, so be it. If you want to label us as “violent” because we will defend ourselves, you are a sheep. If you want to do your own research and arrive at the truth of the matter, visit our web site: http://jdl.org.il, and make up your own mind. Bill Maniaci, Deputy Chairman, JDL, 08 December 2005, mailto:maccabee@charter.net--Bill Maniaci 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)"

Dear Mr Maniaci,

I assume I'm the one you refer to by the phrase "uninformed, or perhaps, anti-Semitic individual". I would like to try to make something absolutely clear. Then hopefully you'll be able to revise your judgement. I do not, as you claim, misrepresent the JDL as a "terrorist group". My personal opinions (whether negative, neutral, or favorable) about the JDL are completely irrelevant here. What I do assert (and here you are correct) is that the FBI has deemed the JDL to be a "terrorist group". I have provided 4 primary sources to support this statement. In two of these sources the exact phrase "terrorist group" is used to designate the JDL. [15][16] In the two others the JDL is described as a terrorist group, although the exact phrase "terrorist group" isn't used. [17] [18] I have also already discussed this in detail above. --Denis Diderot 14:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you please stop citing the worthless Doran testimony. It really undermines your credibility. -- JJay 07:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

The use of passive voice in the first paragraph, "It has been deemed an extremist organization..." is a violation of the Wiki-guideline Wikipedia: avoid weasel terms. WHO deemed JDL an extremist organization? This needs to either be sourced and changed to active voice, or removed. (LOL, changed or removed by whom? See, it's easy to get into the habit!) If another editor does not source this and change it to active voice, then I will remove it (that's better...now my sentence is taking a little RESPONSIBILITY darn it!) capitalist 09:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is presently protected and I cannot edit it, but I was going to reword that sentence as: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has described the JDL in publications and Congressional testimony as a "violent" and "extremist" organization. Tim Pierce 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- done; I've integrated your edits. DS 14:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Could you perhaps also restore the highly relevant information that the FBI has fairly recently (2001 report and testimony in 2004) deemed the JDL to be a terrorist group? [19] [20][21] [22][23]. After all, "violent and extremist" is still not quite the same as terrorist. (See the discussion above for details). I could probably find additional sources, including secondary sources from some mainstream news media, but I really don't think it should be necessary, given the amount of evidence. --Denis Diderot 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I've added the 1999 report to my proposed rewrite -- thanks for providing that. The links to the 2000/2001 report and the Pistole testimony were already there as sources for the FBI describing the JDL as a violent extremist organization. Tim Pierce 16:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Rewrite

I have drafted a proposed replacement for the current page at User:Twp/Jewish_Defense_League and welcome comments.

Online research into this is complicated by the fact that the JDL appears to have split into two groups in 2004. I have done my best to piece out which JDL has been responsible for which claims, but it is difficult. Tim Pierce 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the page is protected again. I'll leave it to the subject matter experts at this point since I don't really know much about the content. I just came by to move the blatant debate and POV stuff off of the article page because it looked horrible there. Thanks. capitalist 03:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the proposed writeup. The other article was definetly not NPOV. JedOs

03:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any substantial objections to User:Twp/Jewish Defense League at this point? I have incorporated some helpful suggestions I've gotten and asked Bill Maniaci for feedback (he has not yet responded). I would be glad to replace the current text of this article but it's protected. Are any admins willing to unprotect the article and/or install the draft I wrote, or do we want to give it some more time? Tim Pierce 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Unprotection

Are any administrators willing to unprotect this article so that I may install the draft I wrote on Dec 10? Tim Pierce 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JDL is not racist

There is nothing in the JDL website that is anti-black and I defy all of you to prove me wrong. Former Chariman of the JDL Chaim Ben Pesach is a strong supporter of black activist Allen Keyes. JDL has also never condoned terrorism. Why is that the Palestinian Authority can call for Jews to be slaughtered every day and actually commit terrorist attacks through it's branch al-aqsa martyrs brigade and still have yet to be labeled a terrorist group but a small group of Jews want to protect themselves and suddenly they are a hate group? If mexicans were sneaking into the country to blow us up every day, I guarantee that most of you would call for the removal of mexicans in this country. (and that may not be very far off as they have begun forming terror groups and calling for their people to take back the mythical land of Aztlan which happens to be in the US, so we may some day discover what you all will call for in the same situation.)

Work on your English. Actually, the Palestinian Authority condemned terrorism almost 18 years ago. Leaving threatening messages on the phones of people who have voiced opinions that do not mirror your own, is indeed a symptom of terror and extremism.

A dig at Mexicans AND calling Allen Keyes a "black activist" in the same passage? Keyes is a misguided, potentially insane pawn of the religious right who is universally seen as a step into the dark ages by African-Americans.

[edit] Location of Hebron

There seems to be a bit of a low grade edit war going on over how to describe the location of the town of Hebron. I don't think that anyone can argue that it isn't in the area known as the West Bank (questions about who the West Bank rightfully belongs to can be asked elsewhere), whereas to describe it as being in Israel is a bit contentious and also contradicts the main article on the town. ZScarpia 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

planned attack on Issa according to FBI. see link: www.rickross.com/reference/ jewish_defense/jewish_defense1.html

[edit] extortion

What might add to this atrticle is the information from declassifed FBI record found in the FOIA electroni reading romm that states JDL's involvement in extorting rap artists such as Eric Wright (Eazy-E) and Tupac Shakur. Also what is interesting is the possible involvement noted in aforementioned document of JDL's involvement with the killing of Alexander Michel Odeh, a figure in the Arab-American anti-discrimination efforts.

[edit] JDL might be racist

To the author of the entitled entry, "JDL is not racist". I dont know about racism, however when it comes to terrorism, there is sufficent and credible evidence to suffice the claim that JDL does partake in terrorist activities. Could JDL be labeled as a domestic terrorist group? Yes, there are noteworthy attributes as a result of its actions to be deserving of that name. I would not venture into labeling them racist, no sufficient evidence compells me to do so, yet I wouldnt be surprised if I have overlooked some evidence I have not researched that may prove so. Acceptance - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" . Question - Are Jewish people really harmed in any way in this country?

[edit] Terrorism again

Can someone please explain to me why a group that has been classified as "terrorist" by the FBI should not be included in Categories:Terrorism ?Homey 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres a lot of other groups that are considered "terrorist" by equally authoratative sources, but it is still inflammatory to include them in such a category if there is not complete consensus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If "complete consensus" is what you need we won't even be able to classify Al-Qaeda. What actual evidence do you have to contest the FBI's classification? Homey 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the leader of the JDL convicted of plotting to blow up an LA mosque? Sounds like a terrorist to me. Homey 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad articles, we do not include the terrorist category in those articles because it is disputed and would be somewhat inflammatory. It is the same here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm Jewish, I'm a supporter of Israel, but the JDL is without a doubt a terrorist organization. We do not need "complete consensus". The FBI designation, plus normal common sense (they blow things up) shows that they are a terrorist org. - pm_shef 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kach and Kahane Chai and Meir Kahane are both listed in the category. I don't see why JDL shouldn't be. Homey 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

[edit] Terrorism and the JDL

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has described the Jewish Defense League in Congressional testimony as a "violent" and "extremist" group. In a sidebar in its "Terrorism 2000/2001" report, the Bureau said, "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." It identified the group in a 1999 terrorism report as the perpetrator of several bombing and arson incidents that took place between 1980 and 1989. Mary Doran, an FBI street agent, described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group," though Doran also acknowledged that she is not involved in "policy and administrative decision-making processes." The group drew heavy criticism for its support of Baruch Goldstein, a JDL member who killed twenty-nine Muslim worshippers at the Cave of Patriarchs in 1994. The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) says in its knowledge base that the last known attack by JDL was on 26 February 1992 and that "(t)oday, JDL is not actively engaged in terrorist actions." The FBI suspects that Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa was targeted by JDL members who planned then aborted a terror attack against his office [24].

The article discusses the JDL and terrorism ie the article references terrorism therefore, by our standards and practices JDL should be listed in the terrorism category. It's quite simple and straightforward, really. Homey 16:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying they aren't terrorist, in fact I think they may very well qualify, but it just is generally not the custom to include any organization in the category, it is mainly for individuals. For example we include Abu Nidal in the category, but we do not include the Revolutionary Council in it. If you want you can include it in a "militant" category. Even though the FBI as well as most of the worlds governments considers Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and all of the aformentioned groups to be terroist, we do not include them in the category, and I do not think we should.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, we list Kahane Chai and Kach, and Meir Kahane in the Terrorism cat and the JDL article talks about terrorism. QED. I'm sorry you "don't think we should" but that's your POV. Set it aside. Homey 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not my pov, its called being polite. I just addressed your argument about listing Kahane and not the entire JDL. There is an difference between an organization and an organization's leaders. Scroll up for more elaboration.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, you have removed the following from your comment above:

"Anyways if you would had looked over the terrorist category you would have noticed that it specifically states it is for individals only."[25]

You are incorrect (I suspect you've realised that by now). We are discussing [[Category:Terrorism]] not [[Category:Terrorists]]. You evidently have confused the two. The description for [[Category:Terrorism]] is as follows:

This category deals with topics relating to events, organisations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism.

The JDL is an "organization... that (has) at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc.".

Moshe, do you agree the JDL fits the category requirements outlined above? If not, how so? Do you deny that the FBI has referred to the JDL as terrorist? Homey 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No I do not agree that it does. Is there some sort of policy that I missed that states that anything that the FBI hold is automatically the position of wikipedia? The FBI states that all of the aformentioned groups are terrorist as well but we do not include them in the category because it is disputed just as much as it is with the JDL.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, the criteria for the category are as follows: This category deals with topics relating to events, organisations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism.

The JDL has "at some point in time been referred to as ... terrorists" therefore inclusion is merited. Homey 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be merited to include mention of it in the article but the category implies that there is consensus on it. There is more agreement that the above groups are terrorist, but we just do not include them in the same category.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, do you deny that the JDL has "at some point in time been described as terrorist"?Homey 00:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a red herring, it doesn't matter if at some point some person referred to the group as being terrorist. What matters is that it is disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the other articles you mention *should* be included in the cat. Otherwise, there's no point in having the cat at all.

I'm sorry Moshe but the criteria for inclusion in the cat is not a red herring, it's the central issue. It seems, from their edits, that other editors disagree with you. Perhaps you should start an RFC on this article asking the question of whether JDL should be included in the Terrorism cat?Homey 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow funny, other editors have removed the category too, the only other editor that has inserted it seems to have pov similar to yours (he is just a lot more civil), so I am not worried. Just because a government considers them terrorist just does not automatically mean that they should be included. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Moshe, let's try another tack. On what grounds do you believe that the JDL is not now and has never been a terrorist group? Don't say "because there's no consensus", I'm not asking you what other people think I'm asking you to say whether or not *you* Moshe think they are a terrorist group. If not, why not ?(given their history of blowing things up or trying to blow things up and failing - an inept terrorist group is still a terrorist group). See[26]. Homey 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What I believe is just as irrelevant as what you believe. I have already stated that I am not a fan of the group, and would probably agree that at least most of their leaders fit the definition of terrorist, not as much as the aformentioned groups, but still a strange group consisting mostly of radicals. However I would not support adding any of these groups to the category, and would really not support adding any group to the category (unless maybe the group itself considered it to be terrorist), it is way too inflammatory and as long as there exists some dispute over it it would be pov as well. No matter how extreme any belief or group is we are not allowed and should not take sides.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence of there being a dispute over the classification, particularly given your failure to say they aren't terrorist and your admission that "most of their leaders fit the definition."Homey 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed by whom? Show me a citation for it being disputed. Homey 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For one the group itself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation?Homey 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Kinky Friedman article: [27]. Since neither Friedman nor the forward are radical this should suffice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to RFC on "terrorism" category

Hey, I showed up in response to Homey's request for comment. IMHO, (1) the JDL itself denies that it sponsors or endorses terror. (2) However, they're clearly an alleged terrorist group, and, as Homey points out, there are a number of occasions on which the JDL endorsed or semi-endorsed acts that I think qualify as terror. (If you wander around their site, I think they're basically in support of Baruch Goldstein, for example). (3) On the other hand, the terrorism category is a mess. As I type, Hamas is in, but Hezbollah and Al-Quada(!!!) are not.

My recommendation would be for all the involved editors to take this to the terrorism talk page. The core problem is that the category is a mess, and there needs to be a clear standard for which pages get included in the category or not. IMHO, either they need to (1) add 2 or three more paragraphs explaining what does and does not belong in the category, (2) subdivide the category into subcategories like "Groups designated as terrorist by the FBI"; or (3) delete the group. TheronJ 19:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As I've already said I don't support the JDL by any measure, but I just figured that the category seemed kinda strange and not well designated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Goldstein

...."On 25 February 1994, Dr. Baruch Goldstein shot and killed 29 Muslims in Hebron, Israel. Because Goldstein was a member of the JDL, this incident attracted some media attention to the JDL...."

I see that this section was removed awhile back. Was Goldstein a member of the JDL at the time of the massacre and can that be definatively sourced? Is/was the JDL active in Israel? Thanks --Tom 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i think it's rather irrelevant if he was an active member at the time or only a passive member, or even an ex-member abroad: the fact is that quite a few JDL members and ex-JDL members have been sought by various government agencies -- including U.S, Israeli, and Canadian, among others -- for criminal extraditions most often related to activity that can be broadly classified as terrorist (and was usually -- but not always -- committed when they were members of the JDL).

Unfortunately, i haven't got the time to go and track all these sources down at the moment (and i'm not even sure what kind of evidence is at this date available on the web); however, considerable evidence certainly exists. I think there is enough evidence -- considering the number of accusations and indictments sought against members and former members -- to merit a section of the article describing these relationships.

Similarly, there is ample evidence to demonstrate a close relationship between the JDL, Kahane Chai and Kach; for instance, upon emigration to Israel (sometimes as a direct result of terrorist or otherwise criminal activities in the U.S.) members of the JDL typically became active members Kach or Kahane Chai. This is common knowledge, but finding an appropriate citation for it may be difficult. One would, i think, need to go to outside sources, although there may be some specialist think-tanks or human rights groups that might've posted something, by now.

Unfortunately, most HR groups in the U.S. can't be bothered to consider the JDL as very important, and so they don't keep many tabs on them; as the Israeli right wing has risen these last few decades, the group's public influence has declined and the active leadership emigrated to Israel, or to other, more powerful organizations. No doubt part of the problem is also that the JDL is Jewish, and so get a pass with much of the public and media. If anyone can cite the relevant books on the subject, then i'll be happy to go track 'em down in a library and validate them for inclusion. Stone put to sky 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep comments like this "No doubt part of the problem is also that the JDL is Jewish, and so get a pass with much of the public and media" off of Wikipedia please, its not appropriate nor welcomed. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest how it could be reworded. The fact that they are allowed to operate - particularly in the 90s - outside of the law seems to imply a "pass" from someone.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJewish_Defense_League_401c.html"