Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 7 October 2005

JDL website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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?

Section 4

Section 4: Imprisonment and Death of Irv Rubin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, these are very heavy claims that JDL is making about the FBI. Is there any proof of either FBI "rogue elements", or of a deliberate FBI "target 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 Misplaced Pages 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)