Talk:Goyim Defense League

Possible sources for update

• Past incidents targeting Jewish Americans may have saved lives during Colleyville synagogue ordeal, https://www.keranews.org/news/2022-01-16/past-incidents-targeting-jewish-americans-may-have-saved-lives-during-colleyville-synagogue-ordeal, KERA-TV
• Denver man in anti-Semitic group arrested in Florida after refusing to follow police commands during a traffic stop, https://coloradosun.com/2021/05/14/joseph-bounds-anti-semitic-goyim-defense-league-arrested/, Colorado Sun
• Hate group known as 'Goyim Defense League' behind racist banners on Brevard County highway, https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2021/12/21/group-known-as-goyim-defense-league-was-behind-brevard-racist-action-on-i-95/8982603002/, Florida Today
• Supporter of Neo-Nazi ‘Goyim Defense League’ Charged With Hate Crime Following Anti-Gay Assault in San Diego, https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/12/28/supporter-of-neo-nazi-goyim-defense-league-charged-with-hate-crime-following-anti-gay-assault-in-san-diego/, Algemeiner Journal
• Antisemitic flyers spread in Boise North End on Saturday; police ask public for help, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article256736967.html#storylink=cpy, Idaho Statesman
• Jews blamed for 'every single aspect of COVID' in fliers distributed across US, https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/12/22/antisemitic-fliers-distributed-across-us-blame-every-single-aspect-of-covid-on-jews/, Israel Hayom

These recent news pieces might help with an update. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GoyimTV is back up

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate or not to add goyimtv.tv or goyimtv.com to the external links section. I'll leave that decision to wiki editors more experienced in this topic area. Grorp (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely appropriate. Wiki doesn't censor. TomWaterson (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As of April 13th, 2023 it is currently down again. I could speculate their provider TerraHost took it down after a user commented about it on their Twitter page. The website now says 'The requested URL / was not found on this server.' while this info came from sitechecker.pro --Lion2Ya (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

GDL leader Jon Minadeo falsely listed as "comedian and actor"

This is my 1st Wikipedia edit, so pardon me if I did something wrong.

Jon Minadeo is listed in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph as a "comedian and actor", but when you go to his Wikipedia page there is no such mention. It's also not mentioned in the cited source for that block of text ([2]). I assume someone from the organisation added this to make them look more favourable (or just trolling).

We should find a source to back up this claim or more aptly introduce him similarly to his personal Wikipedia page -- "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" or something of the sort. Prestiganya (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Prestiganya: Good point. It was in the first copy of this article (in 2019), allegedly sourced to IMDB which is considered a self-published source and not reliable. Looks like there are quite a few oddities in this article. I'll run through it and see what else I can do. Grorp (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I went further through the article, cleaning up some things... until I couldn't stomach the topic any further and quit reading. I'm sure there's much more that could be done with this article. Go ahead and try some edits. Welcome to Wikipedia. Grorp (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just looked up his IMDb page, and I can't believe he has a legitimate reason to have one. Yet he does. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Middle georgia

Leader of gdl was recently arrested in Macon Georgia after spreading hate messages outside of local synagogue. His team is believed to have littered antisemitic notes around yards in Warner robins and Macon ga. 68.98.248.93 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Blaming Jews for COVID-19

"Antisemitic flyers were distributed in residential areas. The flyers featured lists of officials with Jewish-sounding names (many of whom are not Jews), insinuating that such people at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were responsible for the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic,..."

I just found one of those flyers in a magazine display case at the southbound Pasco County Interstate 75 Rest Area in Wesley Chapel, Florida the other day. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

External links

The only official website of this organisation (as far as I can tell) is the "GoyimTV" online video platform it operates, as described in the article. It satisfies both the criteria set out by WP:ELOFFICIAL for being considered an official link; as it is both controlled by the organisation and primarily covers the area for which it is notable. Thus it should be linked per WP:ELYES.

Previous discussion on this talk page suggests the inclusion of the link was uncontroversial, and removed only when the site went down temporarily.

Twice my addition of the link has been reverted. First based on the editor's personal objection to the website's content, which is neither here nor there. And secondly by citing WP:ELBURDEN, which I will of course assume is a good-faith attempt to follow the letter of policy. If there are no valid reasons why the policy of linking to an organisation's official website on its Wikipedia article should not apply here, I will re-add the link in a day or two. 178.77.60.216 (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion above, one person wondered if it should be included, an editor with 43 edits thought it should be (with their I think 32nd edit). I don't think you can draw conclusions from that.

Why is it so important that we add a link to hate speech? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We always include a link to an organisation's official website in its article. By both practice and written policy. It would certainly take more than our personal opinions of the organisation or its website to justify deviating from that.

Based on your edit summary and comment here it appears that your objection to the link is based entirely on censoring distasteful content. Which I understand on a human level, but that's not what we do. Did you have any other reasoning?178.77.57.78 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you feel that policy applies here to the extent of overriding the WP:ELYES policy that an organisation's official site should be linked? It's primarily dealing with images. In fact, the second sentence of WP:GRATUITOUS states that "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers".

To restate the question from my last post: Do you have any objection other than the fact that you find the link offensive?178.77.57.78 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Normally be linked" is the key phrase in WP:ELYES, this is not a normal situation. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The key phrase in the relevant section of WP:ELYES is "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any". I'm dubious that the use of the word "normally" in a heading was intended to override the content of the section when there is no subsequent elaboration on what would be considered "abnormal".

Regardless, for the sake of argument let's say the policy only applies to normal things. What is abnormal about this situation? Wikipedia has countless articles about controversial people and organisations.178.77.57.148 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: We always include a link to an organisation's official website in its article No, we do not "always". There is no requirement that this be included. Further, you keep saying "policy" - ELOFFICIAL & ELYES are not policy. They are content guidelines. There's a difference, and as Doug noted to you, GRATUITIOUS applies. The article is not harmed by the exclusion of an external link. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you take exception to my use of the term "policy". Replacing it with "guideline" doesn't change my explanations though, and I'm happy to refer to them that way going forward. Being a guideline doesn't mean it can be simply ignored though, especially for reasons precluded by other guidelines.

We do, however, effectively always link to official sites in articles about people and organisations. Including articles covering entities as least as offensive as this one. As any editor or reader can plainly see.

When the long established default is to include external links, I think a reasonable bar for exclusion is higher than the article not being harmed. As by that reasoning links to official sites should be scrubbed from the many thousands of articles which contain them.178.77.57.20 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. WP:GRATUITOUS says, Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. So, the "reasonable bar for exclusion" is: Offensive AND unnecessary. Not just "unnecessary" (or "the article not being harmed"). This actual "reasonable bar" does definitely not lead to links to official sites should be scrubbed. Your As by that reasoning is a bad, bad strawman, and you should stop your campaign for propagation of a link to antisemitic garbage. We do not fall for such bad reasoning. Please read WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RE: I'm sorry if you take exception to my use of the term "policy". I don't take exception to it. I was explaining to you that the terms here on Wikipedia mean different things. We have policies and we have guidelines. They are not the same thing. More importantly, as Hob noted, you're grasping at straws. Consensus is against inclusion here and the reasons based on our guidelines have been explained. There is no further discussion necessary. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Since there is now consensus (even if based on feelings over objectivity) and the personal attacks are beginning I will bow out of this conversation. As the saying goes, you can't reason somebody out of a position they did not reason themselves in to.178.77.58.182 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is bullshit. There has not been a single personal attack. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. Andre🚐 10:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)