Talk:Jewish Defense League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Earliest posts

JDL members have been accused of terrorist activity, beginning with bombing attacks on Soviet installations in the United States. More recently, its chairman, Irv Rubin, 56, and another member were arrested by members of a federal anti-terrorism task force (reported on December 12, 2001) on suspicion of plotting to bomb a Los Angeles mosque and the office of US Congressman Darrell Issa, a Christian of Arab-American descent.

---

Above would be improved by:

• revealing who accused JDL members of terrorist activity.
• saying something about the JDL's aims and history

As it is now, the article makes them sound like terrorists, no better than the 911 bombers. Was that the intent?

Now I have to fulfill Taw's pledge . . . Ed Poor —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 13 December 2001 (UTC).

---

According to [1], JDL was originally founded as a vigilante group, and then progressed to burgulary against the PLO mission to the UN, and then on to terrorist bombings, shootings, arson and other attacks. I quote: "According to the FBI, the JDL was responsible for at least 37 terrorist acts in the United States in the period from 1968-1983, while the International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE) database developed on behalf of the United States Central Intelligence Agency by Edward F. Mickolus recorded 50 such incidents from 1968-1987, making the JDL second only to the Puerto Rican FALN (q.v.) as the major domestic terrorist group.... Bombings accounted for 78 percent of all JDL terrorist activities; shootings accounted for 16 percent; while arson attacks, vandalism, kidnapping, threats, and verbal harassment accounted for the rest." -- SJK

Thanks, I think. I am disappointed by what you added, because it is apparently true. I had wanted to think better of JDL. You've answered my "who accused" question, and all that remains is a couple of sentences on JDL's stated aims. Can we compromise on 25% JDL, 75% anti-JDL? (I'd call that NPOV enough for me.) --Ed Poor

---

88% of Revision 14 is evidence of JDL terrorism. Pleas add more about JDL's stated aims than the words "vigilante" and "Jews against their enemies". Surely there's more than that?

Ed, if you think something positive needs to be said about them, you find something positive to say. All the information I have added is quite factual, and if it paints a highly negative picture of the JDL, maybe that is just because that is what the JDL are. -- SJK

I made it about 18% JDL's point of view, borrowing your securitymanagement.com source. Ed Poor

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. (Note-- I think the Arab defense league is known as CAIR)

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

The JDL is not a terrorist organization and nor do they endorse terrorism. I will give you an example. Just because one has a membership in an organization (such as the Republican Party) goes out and commits murder, does that make the Republican Party a terrorist organization. NO.

eternalsleeper

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)

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

Terrorist

<block>I checked the link that was provided to say the JDL was listed as aa terrorist organization and the link didn't even mention the JDL. I not only checked the link, but I checked the data base of terror organizations in the world. The Kach movement is listed, but not JDL. You cannot compare the two, that would be wrong.

Therefore, I removed the bogus link. If you can provide evidence that the HDL is listed as a terrorist organization, please post it back! But that won't happen because it's not! </block> eternalsleeper

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 ([[2]]) 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. (Note: if that is credible need to call Hamas a terrorist organization at least 25 times so that there is impartiality, because Israel gov't considers Hamas terrorist, rightfully so).

Same founder, same beliefs, same movement, same actions. (The Boston Red Sox and the Cincinatti Redlegs started by the same people, but are they the same team?) Do we really need an explicit statement from the U.S. government saying that the words "Jewish Defense League" represent a terrorist group? cprompt (yes, you do, because you base it on the US government),

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. (Then they aren't terrorists. They are more like the Crips and the Bloods).

The JDL is Kahane Chai's American branch (source????). 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 How do you know they work with Mossad? They are condemned by Israeli governmetn, and unless you provide a GOOD ref, I consider that statement more craziness, and suspect I know what part of the world it came from).

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)

The Jewish Defense League is a terrorist organisation. There are two main reasons why the American government is evasive about defining the group as such- it is home grown, and the ingrained American bias in favour of Jews/Israel/Zionism. (Oh yeah, from Nixom to Bush I to Obama to J Edgar-- lovers of Zion,all (tongue in cheek). It is a worry that so many American Jews support this terrorist group. (statement wrong twice: "so many Jews" do not support it, and there is no evidence it is terrorist, even if you hate their ideology). Interestingly there is a similar problem in Israel too, where the majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by Jews (that is a GOOD ONE-- ha, ha).JohnC (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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:

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 Note-- BOTH adjectives, controversial and well respected, are editorial and violate NPOV)

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

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==

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)

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. Moreover, the FBI has a long history of monitoring and infiltrating Jewish organizations down to local ORT and Hadassah cahpters. For more information about, see John Loftus' "Secret War Against the Jews."

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 (was J Edgar Hoover "rogue" or "mainstream"? He spied on Jews as policy and was a known antiSemite) 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)?

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?

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.

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)

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)

Contraversial statement, POV

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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.[3] and [4]. 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[5] 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. [6] 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"[7] "a proscribed terrorist group" [8] 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". [9] "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".[10][11] 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,[12] 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". [[13]] 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.’’ [[14]

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).[15] 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)

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. [16][17] In the two others the JDL is described as a terrorist group, although the exact phrase "terrorist group" isn't used. [18] [19] 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)

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? [20] [21][22] [23][24]. 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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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.

I'll have to dig up some sources, but as I recall the FBI did investigate them for extortion in the matter, but the label in question, Ruthless Records, denies that any extortion tooks place, and maintains that they willingly invited the JDL to provide bodyguards to protect them during their tense dealings with Death Row Records. Since Ruthless was co-founded by Jerry Heller, a Jew, and the label was in need of some "muscle" during the period in which Dr. Dre departed for Death Row, a mutually-agreed-upon arrangement isn't wholly implausible. --Delirium 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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?

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:

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 [25].

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."[26]

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[27]. 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: [28]. Since neither Friedman nor the forward are radical this should suffice.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. --NuclearZer0 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.

FBI weblink

The linked article, on the FBI's website, says:

• Figures include terrorist incidents, suspected terrorist incidents, and preventions, (The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.). [29]

That seems pretty clear. -Will Beback · † · 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another FBI report says:

• Jewish Defense League: Investigation by the Los Angeles JTTF revealed that Irving Rubin and Earl Krugel were active members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a known violent extremist Jewish Organization.[30]

Why is material based on this source being deleted? -Will Beback · † · 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the link it says: "On December 11, 2001, Irving David Rubin and Earl Leslie Krugel were arrested by the Los Angeles Joint Terrorism Task Force for conspiring to build and place improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and the local office of Congressman Darrell Issa. Rubin and Krugel were subsequently charged with conspiracy to destroy a building by means of an explosive, as well as possession of a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence. Rubin and Krugel were active members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a violent extremist Jewish organization. Statements by Rubin and Krugel indicated that they had planned the attack against the mosque to demonstrate the militancy of the JDL. Krugel further indicated that the attack was planned to provide a “wake up call” to the Muslim community. It was determined that Rubin and Krugel had already acquired the necessary components to build an IED, including pipes, fuses, and smokeless powder." --Tom 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

JDL is not (not changing w/o proof) listed as a terror org.

These people on here keep posting a baseless link which does not even mention JDL. I see no reason why they should be able to spread propaganda. If you really want to learn for yourself if JDL is a real terrorist organization please look at the list for terror organizations. That link isn't even identifying terror organizations, they list terrorist acts, including Timothy Mcveigh who was not part of any organization. This militant, terrorist organization is complete BIAS NONSENSE. eternalsleeper

The above quotations from FBI pages clearly identify the JDL as a "terrorist" organization. Which link are you asserting doesn't mention them by name? -Will Beback · † · 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the link and Jew nothing is listed. I have used "search" on two browsers, read the entire article twice, and still I see nothing. I would like to see evidence that JDL is listed as a terror organization. I have searched endlessly and cannot find any evidence. I suggest that anything that says they are a terror organization (as listed by the U.S) be removed immediatley unless someone can prove they actually are a terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations are not allowed to operate in U.S or Canada and the JDL is very active. Just because a democrat goes out and murders someone does not make the democrats a terrorist party, that is the same thing that is going on with JDL. I really hope you will look into this. eternalsleeper

Have you read the three quotations provided above? They are taken directly from the linked articles. That is the evidence that the JDL is listed as a terrorist organization. Here is the link again: [31] You appear to be the only editor who is unable to find this material. You might try Google, which pops up a list too.[32] -Will Beback · † · 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at that article and on google.com and I find no evidence the JDL is listed as a terror organization. All I am asking you to do is provide one government link that defines them as a terrorist organization. The main link is not even a list of terrorist organization, it is a list of terrorist attacks, an attack is different from being defined as a terror organization.

I have no reason to be defending JDL. I am upset that they are being defined as a terrorist organization when indeed, they are not. Just prove it with a .gov link and I will believe you. That should be easy to do because I have just read the list of terror organiztions on a .gov website and JDL is not listed, only Kahane Chai... please... show me..... eternalsleeper

I have looked your links, the first one JDL is not listed, the second one it says Krugel and Rubin were convicted and Rubin committed suicide in prison. The third one only states that Meir Kahane was murdered by a terrorist. This does not make them a terrorist organization. There is no evidence they are listed as a terror organization and I suggest that the label "terrorist" organization be removed from this page.

Apparantly before the information was removed, the site you suggest noted them as a terrorist group stated "JDL is a violent extremist Jewish organization." Extremist and terrorist are two different things.

eternalsleeper

Yes it says that. It also says, "Statements by Rubin and Krugel indicated that they had planned the attack against the mosque to demonstrate the militancy of the JDL." That's why we call it a "militant" group. And much further down the page is also says that, "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." That's why we call it a "terrorist group". -Will Beback · † · 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not listed as a terror organization. I have checked and it is not listed. This is baseless lies. eternalsleeper

The page Will has linked to says:

Figures include terrorist incidents, suspected terrorist incidents, and preventions, (The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.).

You're probably looking at the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, which would not include JDL because they are a domestic organization, not a foreign one. Mike Dillon 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a FAQ for this article. This could be a start. --Denis Diderot 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That link does not specifiy if it is a terror organization. It is a list of terrorist acts. Where is the list of domestic terrorist organizations? Surely if JDL is one it would be easliy accessable.

~~eternalseeper

The FBI does not provide any official document entitled "list of domestic terrorist organizations". They have, however, provided official reports on domestic terrorism. In these official reports, the JDL has consistently been classified as a terrorist group.[33][34] --Denis Diderot 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no list of terror organizations in the U.S? Well that just proves that JDL isn't a terror organization. All your links show is that some right wingers from the JDL were involved in what the FBI considered terrorist attacks. It does not state that JDL is a terrorist movement. ~~eternalsleeper

There are lists of terror groups in the FBI reports, and the JDL has consistently been on these lists. Example: "This group [Jewish Defence League (JDL)] was responsible for seven incidents in 1982." "By means of their terrorist activity, the JDL"...[35] --Denis Diderot 12:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The only way you can consider JDL a terrorist group is if you are bias against them. I know people in the JDL and have attended meetings and in no way do they advocate terrorism or are they a terror group and no link you or anyone has provided has given any evidence. All your link says is that members in the JDL have been responsible for terrorist attacks. It doesn't say JDL is a terrorist organization. I suggest before you post anymore about JDL being a terror organization you look up what a true terror organization is. Terror organizations are not allowed to practice in U.S or Canada and the JDL is very active. Thank you. --eternalsleeper

We are not discussing whether the JDL is a terrorist group. We are discussing whether the JDL has been classified as a terrorist group by the FBI. Here is another link: [36] It's to the 1983 report . There is a list of "Terrorist incidents by terrorist group". There is a category called "Jewish terrorist groups". There is only one group in this category: "Jewish Defense League (JDL)". There is also a section with information about "domestic terrorist groups". Under the heading "Jewish terrorist groups" (page 15), there is only one entry: "Jewish Defense League (JDL)" (page 16)--Denis Diderot 10:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is over 23 years old, times change, they may have been listed at one time as a terror group but in 2007 they are not. Can you find something from 2007??? It should be easy if they are indeed, as you say, a terror group!!-- eternalsleeper

You've already been provided with citations from 2006. It appears that you are being intentionally disruptive in this matter. If you cannot find the name of this group in the citations provided then please accept the good faith assurances of several editors that the group does indeed appear in the cited references. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

first, i think that the 20+ year PDF is pointless no this matter. second, there's no clear cut statement in the Irv Rubin issue so i don't think we can blame a group for being called terrorist by the FBI without some real validated statment and.or without the article expressing it clearly (although it comes very close to that) - i'm thinking that defamation via a single web source is not a good way/neutral and well sourced activity. my personaly thoughts/suggestion is that i think this issue can be easily solved by picking up the phone and calling someone from the FBI to sort this out. here's the number: [37]. p.s. i think the terminology which is not quoted from the article should be taken down until this issue is sorted. Jaakobou 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the FBI has consistenly classified the JDL as a terrorist group[38]. This includes the latest available report for 2000/2001[39]. In 2004 representatives from the FBI continued to refer to the JDL in such terms.[40][41] --Denis Diderot 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because some people in the FBI call JDL a terrorist group does not make them one. They aren't listed as a terror group and there is no proof of that. Many people consider George W. Bush a terrorist, and refer him as such,but that doesn't make him one. --eternalsleeper

User:Denis Diderot, did you think i've missed those links before commenting? i've allready gave my thoughts about the 1983 PDF and also about the "terror2000_2001.pdf" which does not look like a good enough source to make the categorization "declared as terrorist by the FBI" - the 4th link looks like a copy of the exact languagefrom the "terror2000_2001.pdf" - and basically, i think your noly close to good link is the Debbie Doran Congressional Testimony, but i don't think there's any time stamp on her declaration. i think you need a more proper material to establish terrorism designation - if you're calling a group of people by a name and it's not true, it's a very libelleous issue. i'm suggesting you try to resolve this by contacting the agency and requesting an official current day source before you give the above given links again. btw, you could allready ass that in 1983 it was considered a terrorist organization that has performed a single succesffull bombing in that year with no injured or deaths. i'd support that info and saying that debbie attested to congress that it's designated as terrorist... confirmation by phone call would be far better. Jaakobou 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In FBI's report on terrorism 1999, domestic terrorist groups were divided into three categories: "Domestic terrorist groups can represent right-wing, left-wing, or special interest orientations." (p. 17)[42] The same classification was used in the 2001 report. It was also made completely clear that the JDL was classified as a right-wing terrorist group. "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." (p. 11) [43] --Denis Diderot 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep posting the only link you have . If they were a terrrorist organization the information would have been dissemenated all over the web. That link does not clarify that they are a terrorist group whatsoever. There is no proof they are a terrorist group. If they were they would not be able to operate and they are operating out of Los Angeles, CA as well as other major cities in the U.S and Canada. Something Al Qaeda cannot do. --eternalsleeper

I have posted six links in this discussion ([44][45][46][47][48][49], and I could of course post more, but that would be completely unnecessary. We need to establish the fact that the FBI has classified the JDL as a terrorist group, which is what this Wikipedia article says. "In 2001, the FBI officially labeled the organization a "right-wing terrorist group." As I have already written once, we are not discussing whether the JDL is a terrorist group or not. Please review the Wikipedia policy on "original research" if you wonder why. --Denis Diderot 08:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Denis Diderot, this discussion is getting futile - all you've established with all of your links is that the JDL was indeed a terrorist group in the early 80s and that the FBI calls them "extremist jewish group". due to the 6 links you've now produced, i will support a removal of "Terrorits" and support "extremist, once tagged a terrorist in the 80s". Jaakobou 09:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I wonder if you could consider the following statements:

1. In 2001, the FBI officially labeled the organization a "right-wing terrorist group." (the statement you object to in this article).

2. The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group. (from the official FBI report on terrorism 2001, page 11)[50].

Do you see any correspondence at all between these two statements ?

We also the know that the FBI has classified the JDL as a terrorist group for decades.[51][52][53]

Finally we know that FBI representatives, responsible for controlling domestic terrorism, officially referred to the JDL in such terms in 2004: "the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a known violent extremist Jewish Organization" [[54]]. "the JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, a proscribed terrorist group" [55]. Pistole's label ("violent extremist") could be compared with this official FBI 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.[56]

--Denis Diderot 10:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Denis Diderot, i don't know if you're doing this intentionally, but you're misrepresenting the information from the provided links. i stand by my last statement until you brin a proper souce - my suggestion for you to solve this, is to simly make the phone call to the FBI and fix the issue. Jaakobou 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Making a phone call won't provide a verifiable source, such as those we've already have provided with links. In addition to the FBI, the government-funded Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism's Terrorism Knowledge Base lists the JDL as a "terrorist organization".[57] -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

this is getting more and more ridiculous by the minute, can no body look at the date when they provide a link? Jaakobou 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The date on that page is 2001. Have they changed significantly in the last six years? -Will Beback · † · 04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) the phrasing of that article is "violent extremist" not "desgnated terrorist". (2) i think i've explained my position fairly clearly. do you have any special activity you remember them doing that you insist on not finding more sources?? (prefferably recent ones). Jaakobou 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

requesting an admin to change the terror designation at the intro to "previously designated as a terror group in 1980s" per all the linkage until now. you can leave the page locked until better links might show that the organization is still designated as a terror group now days also. Jaakobou 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just found more proof JDL is not a terror group, and it is not listed as a terror organization. [58]

There is no doubt that "JDL is a terrorist group" should be removed from this introduction, as it is completely false and old, bias, etc. In 2007, JDL is a mere political group. -- eternalsleeper

This message is for Will. That site is exactly the same sight I just posted a link of that proves JDL IS NOT LISTED AS AN OFFICIAL TERROR ORGANIZATION. Obviously you did not look very carefully, because on the left hand side it says 'Designated?' and the answer is NO. JDL is not listed as a terror group by the FBI. End of story. eternalsleeper

That is in a section entitled "U.S. State Dept FTO" (i.e. "Foreign Terrorist Organization"). This has already been addressed. Also, this article doesn't say "JDL is a terrorist group"; it says: the FBI officially labeled the organization a "right-wing terrorist group." I'm not sure why you can't understand the difference. Would something like "the organization was labeled a "right-wing terrorist group" by the FBI in a 2001 report on terrorism" be more acceptable? You really can't deny that the FBI said that and that it is in an official report. Mike Dillon 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

will someone make the contact and finish this facade? [59]. Jaakobou 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

JDL is not listed as a terrorist group. You have not proven anything. All you do is copy and paste the only website you can find where JDL is listed. It's not even a list of terrorist groups, it's a list of terrorist activities. Just because someone in the group committed a terrorist act does not make the group terrorists. I don't know whats so hard for you to understand, but it's obvious you are bias and would like to label JDL as terrorist for no reason whatsoever. ~~ eternalsleeper

SMEAR CAMPAIGN

It is starting to appear, even though after I called the FBI to confirm JDL is not a terrorist group, users like Denis D and RolandR are continuing to use their 1980 link which doesn't prove that JDL is a terrorist group. I know RolandR from his contributions is anti-Zionist, anti-Government, etc, so he has a natural reason to be against JDL but I'm not sure about you, Denis. It's obvious you are against finding out the truth JDL or you would pick up the phone and call the FBI like I did to end this drama. eternalsleeper

In the news

Something about this should be added: "Activists confront controversial educator:Demonstrators charged as scuffle erupts over ex-teacher tied to white supremacists"[60]

The "International" section should be under "JDL activities" rather than "Controversies". Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

... again per request on WP:RPP. And again, I've no interest in which revision is the 'correct' one - I just want to stop the disruption. Please try to sort out this "terrorist or not" thing amongst yourselves instead of revert-warring - Alison^☺ 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that the people who keep putting 'militant' and 'terrorist' do not want to find the truth, if they did they wouldn't post nonsense. They have won yet again, I find it ironic when I sought page protection by requests kept getting deleted by a bot, but when Will Baeback did it - it was immediately approved. Very ironic.

eternalsleeper

As far as I can tell, the bot that deleted your entries works on submission date. Since you didn't sign your entry with four tildes (~) they were undated and the bot probably included them with the old requests. -Will Beback · † · 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

VoABot automatically archived your request here, here and here as they weren't filled out properly. WP:TINC here. You might also want to read this essay - 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Call the FBI; JDL is not listed

I encourage you to call the FBI and find out for yourself if the JDL is a listed terror group like I did. If you don't do this you shouldn't ever touch this page with absoulate bias nonsense again. eternalsleeper

Please read Wikipedia:No original research, since that's what you're doing when you call the FBI yourself instead of relying on published sources. Wikipedia policies require the use of reliable sources, such as the fbi.gov link from the 2001 terror report. Also, you need to get over this whole "listed" terror group thing; the FBI source is quite clear that the group was considered a terrorist group in 2001, whether or not it is "listed". Mike Dillon 22:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm pretty much amazed by your "obvious interest" in regards to accuracy in reporting. Jaakobou 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite amused by your hysteria towards making a bias, unreliable article on JDL. Your little page is a mere opinion and does not reflect the actual stance of the FBI. The reason I cannot find anything that says JDL is not a terror organization on the Internet is for the same reason you can't, it is because they are not mentioned. If they were a terror group is would be widly available on the Internet. eternalsleeper

I am also very humored by the fact there is only one link that suggests JDL is a "right wing" terrorist group. Is there such thing as a left wing terrorist group, oh, I think that is what the "right wing" republicans refer to the DNC. The link that suggests they are a "right wing" terrorist group, doesn't even really suggest anything except two members were arrested for a bomb plot that never happened. In the actual article itself they call JDL a "right wing extremist group" but at the top in { } they say terrorist group. Which is it? That is not even clarification whatsoever. There is no evidence JDL is a terrorist group and I highly suggest that the word "terrorist" be changed to "extremist""". eternalsleeper

JDL is not a Terrorist Organization. But, the Leftists who create the Wiki articles love to put their LEFTIST bias into them, and according to said Leftist bias, JDL is a Terrorist Organization... Just more reasons why wikipedia is less and less reliable.

A Modest Request and Attempt Toward Consensus

I think its over a year since I’ve addressed this issue. I’m wondering what progress has been made since then. Would someone please provide me a simple list of links limited to those that explicitly say that the FBI officially labeled the organization a terrorist group?" Please only provide sources that meet all relevant wp policies. - Doright 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no links that say they are a terrorist organization. If they were a terrorist organization they would not be able to accept donations nor have a web site hosted in the United States, which they do, [jdl.org JDL.org] and [JDLCANADA.org JDL CANADA]. I could remove it now but there is a band wagon of people who would be all over it and begging for protection like they did last time I did it. For the record, JDL is not a terrorist organization in any way, shape or form. Please come to the public meeting June 26th @ 7 PM in Toronto at 788 Marlee (ZIONIST CENTER) eternalsleeper

See #FBI weblink for some links FBI links that clearly call the JDL a "terrorist group". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This report is not an official report declaring them a terror group. If they were a terror group there would be many more links other then the simple, 1, that was found. Are terror groups allowed to receive donations in United States? Just wondering... What would happen if you donated money to say, Al Qaida? You'd go to jail. But JDL is a terrorist group yet you can donate to them? Are terror groups allowed to operate freely??????

eternalsleeper

How should I know? You said there are "no links that say they are a terrorist organization" and that assertion is clearly incorrect. Whether they actually are a terrorist group or not isn't our concern. We should only include verifiable info and it is verifiable that the fBI and others refer to them as a terrorist group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

the link you have been using for months, the only link you know of, is not valid. it is a mere opinion of the author.

eternalsleeper

Nonsense. It's an official publication of the FBI that has specific mention of the JDL as a right-wing terrorist organization.

If you really are so concerned about the JDL being so labelled, then you probably shouldn't be participating in an organization that places bombs, assassinates political figures, and supports the racialist, genocidal agenda of Meir Kahane.

My suggestion would be that you go find a different cause to espouse, eternalsleeper, because we're not going to let you re-work this page to accommodate your dreams. Stone put to sky 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

There article clearly does not conform to Wikipeida's policty of NPOV, in much of the way the facts have been presented. This article has a real lack of quality. While my personal POV is Kahane was certainly not right, and the Israeli goverment was right in banning Kahane's party, these facts need to be presented with a NPOV. I have tried to edit a little bit of the lead. This organziation had an important role in New York and other places as a vigilante group in the 1970s, however it's later role as a political party Kahane Chai is being emphasized here, espcially in the initial lead. Epson291 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Still NPOV

This article has NPOV problems. In the first line it mentions it is a terrorist organization yet they themselves say they are not. The greenpeace article had similiar problems upon which was cleaned up. I suggest a redoing of this article. --Lincoln F. Stern 09:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how the Greenpeace thing work out, but we should try to stick to what reliable sources "label' this group as, as well as how they describe themselves. I added "extremist" back in. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Extremist vigilante would also work but terrorism is too strong, I put this page article on my watch list. I will not edit war but I will try to help keep the T word out of the mix, unless it is used to describe particular tactics Albion moonlight 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I added back extremist and will try to source this better. Thanks, --Tom 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

However, they do not consider themselves extremist, the only NPOV thing to do is site sources/organziations that do. Epson291 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves. I am sure there are many nasty murderers out there that consider themselves innocent friendly people but that does not stop us from labelling them as such. --Tom 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, However, see WP:NPOV, what you're talking about is not fact, it is a value or opinion, no extremist organization on Wikipeida is labeled as that forthright, however, there extremist desingation is shown through their actions. If JDL is an extremist organazation by your opinion, then showing their views and actions should gather that for any other reader. Adolf Hitler isn't labeled as a "horrible murderer", but his actions decribed in the article show he is. While JDL is extremist in their views, that is simply my POV, and any reader can gather that from the article, without that designation. Epson291 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also ask what you are disputing in the first line, that says "citation needed." Citation needed is not a tool to remove information you don't like, but if you tell me I'll gather ciatations for this article. Epson291 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

I added the fact tag rather than removing the questionable material. If sources can be found, great. I will also try to review the current links to see if any of it backs up the tagged material. If not, this material should be removed. Thanks, --Tom 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not terrorist

I removed the word terrorist changed the active phrase to militant Jewish. I think we have a consensus here. I am pretty sure we can get admim to block whoever it is that insists on adding word terrorist. Such blocks serve as a mild warning to the person or persons who get blocked. Also perhaps semi protection is a good idea. I have no objection to reverting it back to where it was before Albion moonlight 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "terrorist" is inappropriate and violates Wikipedia NPOV. Have a good day!--Getaway 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An FBI report, "TERRORISM 2000/2001", says:

• The two terrorist plots prevented by law enforcement in 2001 were being planned by domestic extremists. Ronald Mike Denton was planning to attack his former place of employment, the Chevron Oil Refinery at El Segundo, California, when he was arrested in March 2001. In December 2001 Irving David Rubin and Earl Leslie Krugel, members of the extremist Jewish Defense League, were arrested as they were in the final stages of planning attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and the local office of U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa.
• (The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.).

Where does it state this??? I have read the long, long website page seven times and I still don't see what you are quoting. Where in that long, long document are these EXACT words mentioned?--Getaway 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find it then use the search or "find" function on your browser. This particular passage appears just after a chart titled, "TERRORISM by Group Class 1980 - 2001 Total 482". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• On December 11, 2001, Irving David Rubin and Earl Leslie Krugel were arrested by the Los Angeles Joint Terrorism Task Force for conspiring to build and place improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and the local office of Congressman Darrell Issa. Rubin and Krugel were subsequently charged with conspiracy to destroy a building by means of an explosive, as well as possession of a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence. Rubin and Krugel were active members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a violent extremist Jewish organization.
• Lastly, although the planned bombing by members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) on December 11, 2001 is designated as a prevention of a single act of terrorism, the planned incidents have been designated as one terrorist incident against a Civilian/Commercial target and one terrorist incident against a Government target for the purposes of this graph.[61]

The FBI has called the JSL a "terrorist group". It has also called thema "violent extremist Jewish organization", and other things too, but there is no basis to the fact that the subject of this article has been called a "terrorist group", has engaged in what has been called a "terrorist plot", and has been targeted by a "terrorism task force. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that there have been acts of terrorism by members of the the JDL but referring to the whole group as terrorist is inappropriate. Beback's edit seems on the money to me as long as the information is factual. I am not going to check the sources at this point in time but from the looks of things others might. Albion moonlight 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think we should say, in the first line, "The JDL is a terrorist group", but I do think we should say thtat the FBI has called them one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It saved me a bit of time trying to weigh the general consensus Albion moonlight 01:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FBI adjectives

In the FBI terrorism report, the JDL is referred to, in different places, as "a violent extremist Jewish organization" and "right-wing". There was an edit conflict over which adjectives to use in the lead. On this, I must agree with Getaway. While it is citationally accurate to use either phrase (with attribution to the FBI), the "violent extremist" modifier seems much more informative and pertinent here. LotLE×talk 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. We actually agre on something. Thanks, Lulu. --Getaway 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was the dispute. I'm fine with either term. I'd thought the dispute was over the term "terrorist group". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "In its report Terrorism 2000/2001, the FBI referred to the organization as a violent extremist Jewish organization."? Would that give a good balance of the descriptions since it would indicate that it was in the context of discussing terrorism that the FBI used the more specific description? LotLE×talk 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd be more complete to say, "In its report Terrorism 2000/2001, the FBI referred to the organization as a 'violent extremist Jewish organization' and a 'right wing terrorist group'." There's room for both. While I think "right wing" may or may not be important, "terrorist group" is an important description and I don't think we should leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little shy to play up the "terrorist" term in the FBI report. It occurs, but only in the caption to a chart, not in the body text. Within that caption, it seems merely to indicate that JDL is under the "right-wing" pie slice rather than the "left-wing", "international", etc. slices. Clearly, this is a report about terrorism though, but that is indicated by the title already. The "right-wing" part is somewhat distinguishing, but it means so many different things across international contexts that I'm not sure it adds as much light as smoke (specific opinions and actions are discussed in the rest of the article already). LotLE×talk 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've been editing at the same time, Will. Understand that I'm not trying to avoid the 'terrorist' characterization, I just don't think the FBI use is so clean here. What if instead we were to use the MIPT citation from the first paragraph, that includes, "active terrorist organization based in the U.S."? LotLE×talk 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

EC:It's more than just a caption. Have you read the other quotations from that report posted above? The group was the target of an anti-terrorism task force. I don't think that reporting what the FBI has said is "playing it up" and I'd object to removing the term entirely. Yes, "terrorism group" carries a lot of baggage, but setting off bombs is a terrorist-type activity. We've already compromised by not saying in the intro that the subject is a terrorist group. I have no objection to including MIPT descriptor as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot locate the discussion you suggest within the cited report. According to my searches for "Jewish Defense" and "JDL", the group is discussed in exactly two places within the Terrorism 2000/2001 report. Once with the use of the "violent extermist" modifier, and the other time in a caption that uses "right-wing terrorist". If some different FBI report uses other language (i.e. in the body, and not only as a chart clarification), we would be better to cite that. LotLE×talk 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've quoted all four times the JDL is mentioned; see the italicized text in #Not terrorist. If you want to add to the text in the article that the use of the term was as part of a caption then go right ahead. The MIPT, the FBI, and the CIA have all talked about the JDL as a terrorist group so this shouldn't be so difficult. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did confuse two parts of the FBI report, since they contained almost-but-not-quite the same language. But my point remains: the FBI refers to the JDL as "extremist", but refers to the active members mentioned as being terrorist. The TKB is just cleaner as a citation, since the adjective is directly attached to the organization name, rather than requiring an inference about the relation of the organization itself to member actions. We get the same description without needing to push on the actual quoted context. LotLE×talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the sentence "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group" requires any inference. It's quite direct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Assasination vs murder of Kahane

Do we have sourcing for how this should be worded. I see that the text was edited so I changed the section title to match. Isn't there some preference for how this is dealt with? TIA --Tom 13:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please stop restoring all the 3rd party soapboxing to this article, per WP:SOAP. You need to find secondary sources to show that the opinions on these website are somehow notable to the topic at hand. Please see WP:RS and WP:OR to better understand wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Thanks! -- 67.98.206.2 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the message on my talk page, telling me to use this Talk page to discuss the changes. Can to actually join the discussion I've already started instead of filling up my talk page with pointless tags? -- 67.98.206.2 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit removed material and references, and skewed the article. It does not seem to be supported, having been undone by three different people. It might work better to proceed slowly and incrementally, making one small change and waiting a day or two for people to read it. If people disagree, try to argue them around on the talk page. See WP:BRD. You look like an experienced contributor. Please excuse me if any of this seems condescending. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon about this one; we are having the same issue at Southern California InFocus. This looks like soapboxing. Why is this organization's opinion being given the same notability as the FBI's for example? csloat 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, r to Tom) I didn't remove any valid secondary sources. I'm sure some of these claims could be sourced perfectly well to secondary sources (e.g. the FBI's opinion for sure I expect), but simply quoting what one organization says about another organization, without some third party WP:RS showing that the opinion is notable is WP:Original Research. I'm sorry if this article has been full soapboxing for a long time, but, per WP:ATT: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. Try to come up with secondary sources for these opinions, please. It shouldn't be too terribly hard (unlike the similar dispute at Southern California InFocus). -- 67.98.206.2 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I found a source on google books called "Terrorism & It's Effects By various" (ISBN 8189940937),[62] and was about to add it as a ref for this article, then I noticed, strangely, it's mostly a dump of a variety of wikipedia articles, including this one. So, circular reference. -- 67.98.206.2 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed please follow Tom harrison's suggested procedure, 67.98.206.2. Most of your changes seem to skew POV in my opinion; but at the same time I can see a bit of soapboxing in the existing article. Mostly, I just find the existing version doesn't flow all that well in general, not really as a matter of PW:SOAP, just writing quality.

The problem is that you have wholesale removed pretty much every criticism of the JDL, regardless of source or tone. That is simply too much. If you start with one particular paragraph, and try to clean that up, that gives editors a chance to cooperate bit-by-bit, rather than throwing out the entire existing article. Over time and multiple edits, we can find the best neutral language for each article... and hopefully improve the overall flow in the process. LotLE×talk 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Which party

67.98.206.2 in the above comments has decided that a variety of sources are "third party" rather than "second party", and are therefore illegitimate as sources. While there is some principle in WP about preferring primary sources over tertiary ones, in this context I haven't the foggiest idea what the distinction would mean, and certainly not what 67.98.206.2 is trying to get at (assuming it is not simply obfuscation). What makes the FBI, the SPLC, or the ADL, less relevant as sources than... well, I haven't any idea whom the anon might think is more relevant?

While I tend to have problems with all of those sources mentioned (different issues with each one), all are pretty much the best you can do as "experts" in extremist groups. In this regard, the JDL's own description of itself is certainly not any more "primary" or reliable... though certainly the JDL's self-descriptions should also be in the article (as they are). LotLE×talk 20:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault the criticism isn't reliably sourced. If Mariah Carey, for example, decides tomorrow that the JDL is comprised of Al Queda members, and puts that on her website, I don't get to put a note about that in the article ("The JDL is all Al Quada."<ref>http://www.mariahcarey.com/JDL_sux.pdf</ref>) and pretend that's not WP:SOAP. I shouldn't be even able to say "Mariah Carey says the JDL is all Al Queda" because it's WP:OR to assume Mariah Carey is an expert on this fact. What I need is a reliable source, which says Mariah Carey believes this so it can reach a level of notability to where we can even discuss whether or not her opinion is actually appropriate to the article or not. However, I will attempt to find third party sources for some of the opinions presented here, and at least substitute out one for the other. -- 67.98.206.2 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is just reaching the level of absurd pedantry. Mariah Carey is not generally recognized by anyone as an "expert on extremist groups". In contrast—notwithstanding lots of political grandstanding it engages in—the FBI is one of the most widely recognized experts. If 67.98.206.2's argument is that s/he cannot distinguish between citations to the FBI and a hypothetical one to Mariah Carey (in relation to extremist groups; if the topic were modern R&B music, the answer would be different)... well, the best we can do is ignore his/her comments and rollback any destructive edits. LotLE×talk 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You write, "the FBI is one of the most widely recognized experts," and you are, of course, absolutely correct, and that's why it is a simple matter to find secondary sources who agree with you, and quote the FBI in relation to their opinion about the JDL. And as we're writing an encyclopedia, we can then simply cite the material in those secondary sources. See how simple that is? Takes the guess work and the edit warring and the potential for soapboxing right out of the equation. -- 67.98.206.2 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately thick-headed, or accidentally so? The citations you removed were directly sourced to the FBI (at least some of them)! And likewise for those directly sourced and quoted from SPLC or ADL (both highly WP:RS sources, albeit as with the FBI they are partisan in a certain manner). This is getting to the point where I have a lot of trouble seeing something other than bad faith in 67.98.206.2's edit comments. LotLE×talk 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and direct sourcing is WP:Original Research. Those sources are not reliable when they are merely stating their own opinions. What exactly don't you get about wikipedia's policies here? I have secondary sources for the FBI's comments. I hope we will be able to find secondary sources for the SPLC and ADL too, so we won't have to remove too much WP:SOAPbox content from the article. -- 67.98.206.2 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I really wish 67.98.206.2 would read WP:OR. It doesn't say anything remotely similar to what s/he apparently imagines. LotLE×talk 07:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is the more relevant policy. Sources I've seen so far suggest the ADL and the JDL have a long standing feud. I'm having serious doubts one should be used as the primary source for the other, regardless of the self-publication problem. -- 67.98.206.2 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this weird and novel hypothesis about what WP:V or WP:OR says, are we similarly banned from citing the New York Times or the BBC, on the grounds that both of them "self publish"?! This is just getting to be absurdity piled on absurdity.

However, I do think the ADL is a source to use with some caution, and hence I removed their comment from the lead. The FBI and MIPT are perfectly adequate to cite the general characterizations as "extremist" and "formerly terrorist". The ADL citation didn't add anything to that. LotLE×talk 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be "banned from citing" NYT or FBI -- the former is a well known RS for commenting on or describing things; the latter a well known law enforcement organization whose lst of terrorist organizations has weight and notability. The ADL material is probably notable, but we do need a third party showing that IMHO. csloat 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, after looking at a variety of other references, the ADL material isn't entirely off base, either, unlike the edit war over Southern California InFocus where the ADL's opinion about the magazine is more or less just out of left field and reminds me of the old saying: when all you have is a hammer.... I don't believe we have an obligation to stick every opinion the ADL, or any other notable organization, puts on their website into the relevant wikipedia article. Though WP:SELFPUB has some leeway, I'd rather err on the side of caution generally. This article isn't in such bad shape. -- 67.98.206.2 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MIPT source

I'm looking at this source in the lead. It clearly says " The Jewish Defense League (JDL) was an active terrorist organization" and later "JDL is not actively engaged in terrorist actions" while our gloss completely misstates this as if it were currently an active terrorist organization. -- 67.98.206.2 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not remove the tag until this is settled. Leaving out the past tense verb "was" and acting as if the source refers to the JDL as "an active terrorist organization" is certainly dubious. The only thing more dubious is acting as if that's OK because "an active terrorist organization" is an "exact quote." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, Mr. Lulu, and assume you didn't even read this section before removing the tag. Though I'm not sure which is worse. -- 67.98.206.2 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter what language is adopted, the tag our anon repeatedly added is simply not appropriate. Please read the link at the "dubious" tag. There might be some more accurate tag to use, but administratively this simply is not it. We need to be more specific that vaguely insinuate "there's something I don't like here, so I'll slap on a random irrelevant tag to make the text look bad". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) 07:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lulu and I am pretty sure there is a consensus on this matter so please do not put the tag back on there until you have discussed this with the rest of us. Thanks.....Albion moonlight 07:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Lulu's latest wording will satisfy the anon users dubious sensibilities Albion moonlight 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez, can y'all cool it with the personal attacks? Yes, the wording is much better now that it reflects what the source actually says. I hope you don't seriously think such a request reflects "dubious sensibilities"! -- 67.98.206.2 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My observations were based on what you said and did in the aggregate. But I am glad that you are happy now. Really I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of party

I do not have the Bohn book, but it appears that at the time Rubin made his murder bounty offer, the American Nazi Party would have already been renamed to the National Socialist White People's Party. I'm not sure which name should be in the link. If Rubin (or Bohn), in fact, used the earlier name, we should put it in quotes and/or put a [sic] next to it; otherwise, we should probably indicate the contemporary name of the organization. LotLE×talk 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. That could be why Rubin was acquitted? You can't solicit the murder of people who don't exist. The source doesn't give much of an explanation. Everything I'm using is up on google books though. -- 67.98.206.2 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated American Nazi Party to note that a few inconsequential groups/persons did keep the name alive from time to time. I stand by my thesis that Rubin was just being a clever propagandist here. It might be worth footnoting that the group was actually defunct at the time he put out this bounty, but it does seem to be what he actually said. -- 67.98.206.2 04:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sympathy with Kahane

This sentence feels very problematic to me unless we can make it more specific:

A poll by the American Jewish Committee, before Meir Kahane's assassination, showed that 14% of American Jews "professed strong sympathy towards Kahane."[4]

As it exists, "before" is far to ambiguous. Is this the month before? The year before? A decade before (i.e. 1980)? Two decades before? I assume the point is that this level of support existed circa 1990; but leaving that unstated is just bad. If we simply do not know what year this poll happened, it would be better to omit the sentence. LotLE×talk 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was blocked for 24 hours, much to my surprise, due to all my relentless "disruptive editing" on this article, and despite watching an endless cavalcade of characters parading through Category:Requests for unblock being rapidly unblocked on the slightest conceit, no one ever bothered to review my unblock request.

The good news is, with so much spare time on my hands to do research, I'm fairly certain I can date this survey to 1986 now, based upon a website which quotes Richard Friedman's book on Kahane. It's not an entirely reliable source, and I don't have the link in front of me at my current location, but there's little reason to think they made the date up. I'll provide the link tomorrow, unless I'm reblocked by then for some edit I made six months ago or something.... -- 67.98.206.2 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this information. LotLE×talk 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely feel for Kahane. JDL forever.

Cultnews.com description

I added "Jewish anti-cult activist" to describe Rick Ross (consultant) - this is necessary to establish context. Please explain why it is being removed. Sfacets 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

These descriptive phrases are problematic, and not needed since we link to his biography. Further, the burden is on you to justify including the material, not on others to justify not including it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that dropping a possibly POV description is better. A link to Ross' biography provides more context than a narrow few words of adjectives. Attributing authorship is sufficient, readers can evaluate the merit of the author by themselves, they don't need to be force-fed it. LotLE×talk 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't POV - because he is in fact a Jewish anti-cult activist. It is important that the reader knows that. Sfacets 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important for readers to know that, but not the religion/ethnicity and views on cults of other authors referenced in this article? What makes Ross so special that we need to inform the readers? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback's point is obviously correct. But moreover, the fact that Ross has a WP biography makes the matter even more obvious. If some other author was quoted on a point, but the reference was to a less readily available printed work, and the author had no WP bio, a few words of description might really help with context. But for an author whom readers can research just by clicking a wikilink, additional adjectives are rarely of any utility, and usually only used as peacock words (as is probably the intention here, though I'm not certain of Sfacet's motivation). LotLE×talk 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes RR "special" is that he is both an anti-cult writer as well as a Jewish writer. His views therefore may be conflicted. It isn't my intent to add peacock words, but to inform the user. Sfacets 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The JDL is clearly considered a Terrorist Group by many Reliable Sources

I have no problem with re-wording the intro towards something less dramatic; however, as my edits have demonstrated there is more than enough evidence out there to warrant inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the opening. There is nothing anti-jewish nor anti-semitic about such a statement; i am firmly anti-terrorist and, consequently, insist upon a clear wording that leaves no doubt about the views of establishment police organizations regarding the Jewish Defense League.

Whatever follows is fine and i'm happy with a re-write, just as long as there is suitable mention made of the official estimation of the Jewish Defense League. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, that there is nothing Anti-Semitic about introducing the JDL as a terrorist organization, as many Jews themselves are against the JDL. But, it would be a false andmisleading introduction. The JDL is not a terrorist organization and is not in 2008 identified as one. I encourage you to prove how a terrorist organization is allowed to raise funds, receive donations, operate a US-based web site? Kahane Chai is a desingated terrorist organization- not the JDL. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The JDL has a long history of planting bombs in public places and funnelling money to groups that do so in Palestine. The JDL has been clearly desginated a terrorist group by the FBI and for some 40 years now it has been consistently identified as a terrorist group in State Department memos; your assertion that it has been taken off the FBI list of terrorist groups requires sourced attribution. As it is, we have the FBI as having gone on record as recently as 2004 to state that the JDL is a terrorist group. Unless you have a reliable source that conclusively demonstrates the FBI has taken them off that list then there is no reason to suspect that they have been.

And no -- the MIPT is not a valid, reliable source in this respect; according to other editors here -- people, i might add, who consider the JDL to be "not" a terrorist group -- as of 2002 the MIPT was not considered a "reliable" or "valid" source to allege the JDL a terrorist organization. The justifications at that time were that the MIPT database is a contractor to the government and is not considered an authoritative, accountable, fact-checked source. The statements upon which that judgement was made are still prominently displayed on the MIPT home-page.

Further, we have the FBI on record as saying the JDL is a terrorist organization; unless you or others can come up with statements by the FBI demonstrating that they have removed the JDL from the terrorist list then yes, it is undeniable that the JDL is -- at least for Wikipedia's purposes -- considered a terrorist group.

There is nothing misleading about that statement; in fact, overall it is much more accurate to say that the JDL is a terrorist group than it is to say Hamas is: Hamas is a "political wing" in precisely the same way that Sinn Fein is. Hamas, like Sinn Fein, is a political/social organization that has been explicitly isolated from the activities of the armed organizations with which it has close ties. Just as Sinn Fein is not considered directly responsible for the acts of the IRA, so also the same standard should be held for Hamas.

Yet the JDL does not share that same luxury; it and its leaders have publicly admitted to terrorist acts, and over the years the JDL has protected and shielded many of its members from prosecution for assassination, extortion, and other acts of terrorism. However, even if one wishes to exclude those acts from current consideration, then if Hamas can be called a "terrorist group" for its support of extremist organizations then clearly the JDL qualifies as well.

Once again: the JDL has murdered politicians; placed bombs in public places that have killed scores of people, if not hundreds; and acted as one of the main U.S.-based fund-raisers for Kach/Kahane Chai. We have the FBI on record as saying at least three times that the JDL are considered a "right-wing terrorist group". Unless you have sources that can reliably dispute this fact then there is no reason to contest the current intro. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Meir Weinstein

Could some editors go over to the related article Meir Weinstein and review it - particulary in regards to this edit by Eternal Sleeper [63]? He's removed a lot of material claiming that it has been "cut and pasted" but I've only found two or three lines that can be called that and have reworded it. Most of what ES is objecting to are short direct attributed quotes which are actually allowed and encouraged in WP. Thanks. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ariel M. Nahal, JDL-Europe addition

For almost 20 years, mr. Ariel M. (Menachem) Nahal is the coordinator and chairman of JDL-Europe. Jdl-Europe is directly related to JDL US; JDL-Europe members are also automatically JDL-US members. Ariel Nahal is known to live in the Netherlands and a good friend of Shelley and Irv Rubin, resp. current and previous JDL chairman. JDL-Europe coordinates and funds european chapters and actions. Dutch newspaper NIW has done an article on him in 1998. The jdl europe page is www.defens.com.

Wikipedia suggestions: JDL Europe, Ariel M. Nahal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.19.127 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD EXTERNAL LINK: JDL Europe: http://www.defens.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.127.210 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The official JDL website and chairman Shelley Rubin recognize Ariel Nahal as official 'European national director' and 'Senior intelligence officer'.

The connection of the JDL with the (outlawed) Kahane movement has been seen confirmed by the announcement by Kahane's widow Libby Kahane, that the top-three JDL leaders Shelley Rubin, Fern Sidman and Ariel Nahal are going to attend the Kahane memorial day and JDL's 40 year aniversary in Jerusalem on november 10 2008.

Sources: www.jdl.org and forum.kahane.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.129.97 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT TERRORIST.

While it is considered a "violent, terrorist extremist group" by the FBI, the US is not at war with the JDL, and the JDL do not exist only in the United States. Therefore, it should not be considered a terrorist group. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about what the US thinks about people, it is about what they are. The JDL is a terrorist group because they kill civilians in order to cause fear in their opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Official JDL Position

Two sentences in that section were edited to actually reflect sources quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.4.72 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"victor vancier former jdl" !?

NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.241.188 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that whole paragraph was previously properly sourced to the ADL and then someone messed with facts and/or removed references. I fixed it for now. Got correct info on Soviet agents plans from amazon search of book. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)