Talk:Jewish Defense League

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Pic Signed With JDL[change source]

There is no proof this text was written by the JDL, or the JDL even had just something to dit with it. If it is not the work of the JDL it has nothing to do at the article of JDL. Everyone can write JDL on a wall with some racist texts above it. Probably the work of opponents of JDL. If you add it to the article like you want to do, the reader will see it as the work of the JDL. Which it most likely is not; i.e. there is no proof it is.

I can write some terrible racist stuff about black people on the wall and then sign it with "George W. Bush", make a pic of it and add it to the article about George W. Bush. That would, of course, not be accepted. Here happens the same. There is no proof at all that the JDL wrote this racist text, so one cannot link it to the JDL, neither in a quasi 'subtile' way. SwedishSven (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's your sources then? The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
My source for what? The one who added the pic should prove that it was written by JDL. If I write some terrible racist stuff about black people on the wall and then sign it with "George W. Bush", make a pic of it and add it to the article about George W. Bush and then someone would delete it, stating that it was probably not really George W. Bush who wrote it, whould u ask him for a source?
One cannot prove a negative. That's like lesson nr. 1 in philosphy of science. "Prove God does not exist, otherwise I will write on Wikipedia he does exist"... SwedishSven (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree, that if it cannot be proved that this was actually painted by this organization, that it is not the best picture for this article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Berty[change source]

What does it take to convince you that this picture does not belong in this article? In the discussion above also Gordonrox24 agreed to this. SwedishSven (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, the basic problem is that the "Logo" of the Jewish defense league is non-free, and that we only use images from Wikimedia Commons. This image was the closest found (to be in relation to the Jewish Defense League). Give us a better picture, and we will gladly replace it...--Eptalon (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that up Eptalon. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 18:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
@Eptalon: there you go: SwedishSven (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The inclusion of the "gas the Arabs" picture in this article is an abomination and should be reversed immediately. SwedishSven has made some good points and there is a better and more neutral picture available. The pushing of the current picture by some users cross wiki is lamentable. --Kalsermar (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless you're a sock. I'll have you CU'd by Brian. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Kalsermar is not a sock of SwedishSven/etc. Just an NL-Wiki user with strongly similar opinions. Back on topic: Another EN-Wiki user has enhanced the caption which is a great improvement, showing (with references) relevance: [1] --Whaledad (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Some people are far better with words than I am: Thanks, DBaba. --Whaledad (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture[change source]

There is no consensus that the picture that is being pushed by Whaledad is appropriate for this article. there is another picture that seems to be less controversial and more than one editor here has objected to the original and/or suggested that a less controversial picture be found (and one has indeed been found!). I think it is clear that the onus is on Whaledad to explain why "his" picture (to which there are strong objections) is better than the other picture (which seems up to now to be without controversy). --Kalsermar (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OMFG! Mister Kalsermar, you know full well, that I did NOT place this picture on Simple-Wiki. I merely address the ongoing vandalism of Mister Knowalles and his countless sock puppets who goes around cross-wiki and (in many cases without even knowing the language) continues to remove the picture. Most of Mr. Knowalles' sock puppets are now locked or blocked globally because of this continued vandalism and sock puppetry. Now please, don't go around in Camera-style meat puppetry and rehash this discussion everywhere. In most Wikis around the globe the regulars of those Wikis have chosen to keep the picture, noting that it was signed with JDL, but not proven beyond any doubt that it was posted by them. Please peruse when you have the time: [2]. Mr. Whaledad (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC

A man with a can of spraypaint and an opinion is not a valid source for an image defining anything. Whether pro or con, neither pic can be attrib'd the to subject of the article definitively. --Creol(talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)