Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Criticism in lede

There is a significant amount of well-sourced, relevant criticism of the organization in the body, from a combination of policy analysts, Jewish activists, and other political and non-profit organizations. Some of this criticism was formerly in the lede, but were removed several months ago. I've added criticism back to the lede in a format that concisely and accurately summarizes what's stated in RS. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ModerateMike729. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@ModerateMike729: The 1993 surveillance scandal should also be mentioned in the lede, as it was a pretty big incident with widespread coverage. On that related note, I'm wondering why the section header uses "ADL files controversy" over the more common "ADL spy scandal" or ADL spying scandal.

A search of the first gives me 261 results on Google, most of them from the 2010s. The third gives me 123 results; and the second gives me 355 results, going back to the 90s, including several on Google Books. DA1 (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd certainly support the inclusion of the scandal, and "files controversy" is clearly a WP:WEASEL. If it's spying, call it spying. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"ADL spying operation" also gives me 412 results. Of course, there is an issue of reliable and unreliable source regarding all of the aforementioned. But there's quite a few newspaper articles and books that use 'spy scandal' and 'spying operation'. ModerateMike729: The header "Executive Order 12333" is also pretty vague, and would be much better titled "FBI partnership and Executive Order 12333". DA1 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of primary sources - 1993 "spying" - UNDUE

@Ivar the Boneful: - per WP:PRIMARYNEWS - while newspapers may be secondary, age matters - and in this case the entirety of the section (complete with possible BLP violations) is sourced to newspapers reporting events while they were breaking. This we have 1993 sources covering the story when it broke, coupled with a few 1999 sources reporting on a settlement deal. Newspapers reporting on events (close to the events themselves) 20+ years ago are PRIMARY. Furthermore - if no one has bothered to write a WP:SECONDARY analysis of this in one of the many books or journal articles covering the ADL - it is rather clear this is WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I will further note that I attempted to find secondary sources. What I did find was was a few conspiracy oriented authors - for instance - this - but little of anything resembling a WP:RS covering this. I will note that non-newspaper sourcing in the section consists of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - by Penguin books - which wouldn't remotely pass RS standards - definitely not for BLPs - and the Antifa Info-Bulletin which is a RS fail as well.Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a typical bullshit argument for censoring a notable event in ADL's history. Zero^talk 21:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz....no one has provided reliable secondary sources saying this episode was important for ADL history -- it fails Wiki tests for both reliability and notability. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Calthinus this content has been in the article unchallenged for at least 10 years, the onus is on the people wishing to remove 9k of test to gain consensus for removal. Jeffrey Kaplan and sv:Heléne Lööw, both of whom appear to be reputable academics according to their wiki articles, dedicate pages 297-300 of this book to discussing the matter. The Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and Washington Post all wrote separate stories on the matter. If the controversy emerged in 2018 I have no it would be included in the article based on the same sources. I have no problem with some of the excess detail being deleted to focus on the most pertinent facts, and some of the less reliable sources being removed or substituted. But a mass deletion is unacceptable and appears to be whitewashing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That this conspiracy crap has been 10 years in the article - is not grounds for retention. This was a minor kerfuffle in 1993. It ended with a nothing burger settlement in 1996 (which - should throw 1993 sources out of the window - as the end result was different from the initial burst of press) - the ADL paid legal costs + donated 25,000$ - a nuisance settlement . Since then - coverage of this has been the realm of conspiracy theorists. The book you are citing is edited by Lööw and Kaplan (titled - The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization - a red flag in and of itself - covering various cults, and is per itself a collection of essays) - the chapter itself is by Laird Wilcox - and is a summary of his 1997 book The Watchdogs (and is titled the same). In this chapter Wilcox rails against a number of organizations - including - Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, Political Research Associates, and the Center for Democratic Renewal. Without strong multiple WP:SECONDARY sources showing this is WP:DUE - this 10k conspiracy crap ( or 13% of the current article - I just noticed it was duplicated another time under "Relations with African-Americans" - we have the same text more or less duplicated) - should be removed from this article. Promoting conspiracy theories on Wikipedia - is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First it was "there are no secondary sources", now its "strong multiple secondary sources" and labelling reputable academics and major newspapers as conspiracy theorists. Shifting the goalposts. Based on your general wiki contributions it's pretty obvious that you're pushing a particular POV and trying to whitewash this article accordingly. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not labelled primary newspaper accounts from 1993 as conspiracy theorists. Which secondary sources (preferably, published within the last 15 years) do you have here to support this extensive content?Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

15 years? Whenever you can't find a policy-based reason for your preferred text you make up a policy. Actually the article has too much on this incident and it should be pruned. But it isn't a conspiracy theory and there is nothing wrong with using newspaper articles that reported the events at the time. I have a solid academic source too: Joel Beinin devoted a page to it in "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East", Class and Race, Vol. 46(1): 101–115, 2004. Zero^talk 11:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on those who want to include the text.The WP:ONUS is not met --Shrike (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A detailed account in an academic journal by a highly respected historian meets ONUS comfortably. Obviously. Zero^talk 12:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's clear that this was not an earth shattering event that is notable enough to merit such a large note on an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think we not include more then two lines about these matter --Shrike (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Gosh, what if I went around deleting all material, based on newspapers, about Israelis killed? Say, take 2017 Halamish stabbing attack, Beersheva bus station shooting, 2015 Gush Etzion Junction attack or 2015 Shvut Rachel shooting...hmmmm, I seem to have seen a few of you around on the AfD of those pages...and then "primary" sources were no objection at all, funny that, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYNEWS - age and distance from events matter for newspaper sources. In this case this is particularly egrigious as we are using breaking news reports from 1993 on a police and FBI probe - which ended with no criminal conviction (leading to beyond UNDUE - also to BLPCRIME issues on some of our current content). A civil lawsuit ended with a nuisance settlement - yet - we are spinning an event which ended up as nothing (ignoring Mossad conspiracy nuts - who are still spinning this as part of Jewish conspiracy in various fringe polemics) - as some major event based on breaking news from 1993.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, will you ever stop inventing policies that don't exist? Zero^talk 12:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS is in an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:No original research's Primary, secondary and tertiary sources subsection. Treating breaking news items from 25 years ago as primary is rather basic.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule against using primary sources. You have been told that many times but you keep making the same false claim. You cited WP:PRIMARYNEWS, so read it: Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources. Zero^talk 13:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

1993 sources on the police investigation are reliable for the status of the police investigation. They do not reflect subsequent developments (e.g. the investigation being closed). Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used, but only with care (WP:BLPPRIMARY stating even further restrictions). The lack of subsequent secondary coverage is an indication this is UNDUE. The police/FBI case being closed is a rather significant development, that the 1993 can not reflect.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning- Edit Warring

To all concerned... Knock it off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

This material appears in two sections I propose to remove the duplication and retain the material only in one section --Shrike (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Should be trimmed as well - way too much space for an issue that seems to be based on 2007 news coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• user:Shrike, I think this section could be more usefully moved to Abraham Foxman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The introduction shouldnt say how they describe themself

It make no sense, since thats their own opinion and advertising. IT MAKE THE ARTICLE BIASED. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

Mission statements are often included in articles about not-for-profit organizations. I've reverted your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the style of articles in Wikipedia, there should be at least some awareness regarding advertising and biased information. We witness quite some activity of not-for-profit organizations doing weird advertising. There are religious groups such as sects whose advertising is extremely different from their actual program, too. Regarding ADL, there are some issues with discrimination e. g. against black people that absolutely do not correspond with official ADL ideals published by this organization. Some people even complain about lopsided i.e. biased religious and racial conceptions ADL was promulgating. This does not mean that reproaches are with good cause, but it shows that Wikipedia authors need to have some awareness regarding this set of problems. --92.73.9.178 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Section "Origin"

This section is in poor shape. Some short phrases as existing so far do not reflect the basic situation that led people to found ADL. The whole historical plot is missing. Information on the origin should be profound and comprehensive, not short and superficial, and especially not citing some commonplace, plattitude or even shibboleth. --92.73.9.178 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, we’re not paying homage to the subject. Anti-Semitism is mentioned 55 times. I think the organization’s raison d'être is well covered. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, information taken from advertising does not reflect the actual origin of an organization and a "raison d'être" does not reflect the actual history of origins. --92.73.9.178 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Make a suggestion, or boldly edit. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC - lawsuit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous discussion - Talk:Anti-Defamation League#Use of primary sources - 1993 "spying" - UNDUE. Which of the following should appear in the article:

A: Nothing.

B:

In 1996, the ADL settled a federal civil lawsuit filed by groups representing African Americans and Arab Americans, that alleged that the ADL hired agents with police ties to gather information. The ADL did not admit any wrongdoing, but agreed to a restraining injunction barring the ADL from obtaining information from state employees who are forbidden by law to divulge such information. The ADL also agreed to contribute 25,000$ to a fund that funds inter-community relationship projects, and cover plaintiff legal costs.

References

C: The content present in this diff.

Please indicate A, B, or C + a reason. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• A, possibly B. The content in C contains BLP violations (various assertions of wrong-doing towards BLPs who were merely investigated - not convicted of anything - charges were dropped) and is based on breaking news reporting on a police investigation that ended up with nothing (all charges dropped a few months later in 1993 - NY Times), stmts from opposing groups, and on a source widely accused of antisemitism. There is little subsequent WP:SECONDARY coverage in RSes (ignoring conspiracy theorists and sources accused of antisemitism) of this incident which ended with a minor nuisance settlement in 1996. Devoting 11,114 bytes (out of 77,622) - or 14% of an article to this minor affair (which generally is not covered in sources on the ADL - definitely not at this length), while repeating the same content copy-pasted a few times in the articles, has Wikipedia resembling a conspiracy site. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• B - B is a concise summary of the incident, without all the unnecessary (and confusing) details. We're not here to re-litigate the event, but to report on an incident on ADL's history. If they had a subsequent, or previous, track record of doing this sort of thing, then more detail might well be justified, but there's no indication that this is the case. We are not here to either condemn or condone what the ADL did, simply to report it objectively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• A, possibly B. From reading the above, I'm not convinced that this incident is significant enough to mention—seems pretty run-of-the-mill and isn't covered in sources focusing on the history of the ADL. I'm also concerned about BLP violations. Catrìona (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• B. Nuisance payoff, BLP, report briefly, point to reliable sources. A big foo-foo that resulted in nothing other than some lawyers getting paid. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Something between B and C. C is way too detailed, while B seems too concise. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• C, possibly some shortened down. B is way to short: no mentioning of the 175.000$ ADL agreed to pay the opposing party's lawyers....one simply do not agree to pay such sums unless there was some serious wrongdoing, (NB, note that this was back in 1996: the total 200.000$ was quite a bit more then, than now.) Put it another way: you don't hand over 200.000$ in a settlement for "nothing"...unless you are a complete idiot. And no: I do not think the leaders of ADL are idiots, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• None of the above. B is too short and vague, while C is too long. Instead, the source Joel Beinin (2004). "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East". Class and Race. 46 (1): 101–115. ticks all the boxes for a reliable secondary source and should be used as the main basis for an account of about 100-150 words. Zero^talk 00:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  A (long) paragraph in a paper by the former president (2002, paper from 2004) of MESA complaining of criticism of MESA (by the ADL and several others) following 9/11. The author is also a founder of JVP which has also been involved in conflict with the ADL (e.g. recently - here). Hardly a neutral or un-involved source - as Beinin himself makes clear in the first page of his article. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz thinks that only admirers of the ADF are welcome on the ADF article. That's more invention of policy by Icewhiz. Zero^talk 08:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that - I merely pointed out that this is a highly WP:BIASED source - the former president of MESA (clear disclaimer in first page of article) which is involved in a long-running dispute with the ADL (documented in the same article).Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• B is a good start. If @Zero0000: wants to add something about the ADL acting as a nefarious spy or foreign subversive agent he should post the text he wants here.Jonney2000 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no obligation on me to post text first here. Zero^talk 08:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• A As a first choice and B as a second choice.I am not sure the incident should be included at all as it very minor incident but if it should be included option B is the best of the presented as per WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• A Institutions settle lawsuits all the time. Here, as always, the two sides had very different accounts of what happened, and very different interpretations of the reasons for settling. This sort of thing is ROUTINE and keeping it on the page is WP:UNDUE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory Though option B have its drawbacks as compromise you should reconsider it at least as the second choice --Shrike (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• C - but tightened down a bit. B - is just a preferred version of the inquiring editor, so that could be considered as well but only with an option of additional expansion if needed, not as a final version. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• B is the closest to what we'd want, and we don't have any BLP-violating name-dropping. It could certainly be expanded a little bit. We have to consider both WP:recentism and the fact that this was widely reported initially – such situations usually end up with a compromise, not A. Still, I'm not sure that we have enough retrospective analysis to know for certain how much to include. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• None of the above per Zero0000, but C is the best of three bad choices. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Out of all the current choices I'd go with B as is now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• B, maybe with some minor tweaks or additions. Sufficient sourcing for a brief mention, not enough for the ridiculous wall of text in C. There's room for a little bit more if people feel something vital is being left out or whatever, but turning a huge chunk of the article into this and giving such a detailed blow-by-blow in the main ADL article is obviously silly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Something between B and C. C is too detailed and not always coherent, while B seems too concise and to misrepresent the incident in significant details. The sum ADL agreed to pay out was not 25k, but 275k, 11 times as much. The first 75k of this was specifically quid pro quo as part of the agreement for the dropping of all criminal charges ( Smith agreed not to prosecute the organization in exchange for its payment of up to $75,000 to the County of San Francisco to fight hate crimes). Even assuming honourable motives on the part of both prosecutor and ADL - this is not a conventional 'charges were dropped' situation. Surely, no court has ever examined the records improperly held by ADL, nor ascertained whether any were illegally obtained, but it should be possible to give a fuller account without loss of neutrality. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  A court actually did determine that the ADL "had certain legal protections as a journalistic organization"LA Times, 1993 - which made the probe rather moot in 1993 - the 75k (nusiance) settlement was not the deciding factor behind that per the LA Times. The sums paid (the 75k in 1993, the 25k + 175k legal costs repayment in 1996) are nuisance sums - employing a legal team.... costs more, much more than this. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• A As a first option, and B as a second. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• B, with perhaps minor expansion down the road, based on secondary RS, let's say one additional para (roughly). This would obviously depend on high-quality RS being available (not primary sources from the time of the incident). --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• B. At least B. Another 100-300 words summarizing the material in C would be appropriate.--Saranoon (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antisemites' Criticism of the ADL

The rejection of the material I am trying to include is a bizarre effort to hide antisemitism. Clearly, antisemites attack the ADL in an antisemitic way. Drawing the boundaries of that antisemitic "criticism" is essential in any discussion of criticism of the ADL. For one thing, it gives important context to understanding the antisemitic undertones of Finkelstein's critique. (It helps when you don't hide that he called Foxman "worse than Hitler"...)

The ADL has come under criticism from antisemites for nearly its entire history. As one scholar opined, "White supremacists have long "portray[ed] the organization as a powerful, subversive arm of Zionism that endeavors to fetter the rights of Americans." In the 1920s, Henry Ford's The International Jew accused the ADL of "bulldozing methods." The influential antisemitic publication also objected that the ADL "knows how to put the screws on anyone who disparages the Jews." In 1949, Rep. John E. Rankin introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would have made it "unlawful for any individual to be a member, or to participate in the activities, of the un-American subversive organization known as the Anti-Defamation League." Jack Tenney penned a 1953 pamphlet "Zion's Fifth Column" that contains a chapter on the ADL. He described the ADL as "the nerve center of a world-wide net-work whose tentacles reach into every Gentile activity." Liberty Lobby regularly objected to the ADL, at one point publishing a book alleging that the ADL was engaged in a campaign against freedom of speech and thought in America. Lyndon LaRouche, according to investigative reporter Dennis King, "took the final plunge" into the extreme right by "declaring war on the Jewish lobby, the international Jewish bankers, Jews in the U.S. government, and (most especially) the Anti-Defamation League." LaRouche said he would "crush" the ADL, which one of his publications blamed for an epidemic of drug addiction. Kiseitehilot (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a copyright violation from this opinion piece. Absolutely unacceptable. Zero^talk 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You have (falsely) created a catch-22: I can't cite the facts in an opinion piece because it's an opinion piece, and neither can anyone ever again refer to any facts mentioned in that piece because it's a "copyright violation." That's absurd. Kiseitehilot (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that you either need a non-opinion source making the argument you're trying to make, or you need to convince people that that opinion piece is WP:DUE for inclusion with inline citations ("Andrew Mark Bennett, writing in Forward, argued that...") Sop far you've tried to just cite the opinion piece as fact, and then, when people objected, you've tried to lift its argument and drop it directly into the article with only primary sources. Even if you rewrote it to avoid the copyvio problem, the core issues would still be:

• You're implicitly describing all these people as antisemites in Wikipedia's voice; that's definitely something that raises WP:BLP concerns - if you want to do that, you need a strong, independent, non-opinion source explicitly stating, for each and every person in the list, that they're an antisemite. Even with such sourcing people might insist on an in-line citation based on the quality of the source and how uncontroversial the description appears; but you absolutely cannot cite a WP:PRIMARY source and say "here, this shows them being antisemitic" - you need a WP:SECONDARY source drawing that conclusion. To be fair, for many of these people I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find such a source, but you still need to include it. WP:OR generally forbids us from making such interpretations.
• Even with such sources, if you want to structure these into an argument ("the ADL has been criticized by antisemites"), you'd need to cite a source stating so specifically. Taking a bunch of people you can find cites for describing them as antisemites, then quoting them criticizing the ADL in order to make that point is WP:SYNTH. The opinion-piece you're trying to lift the argument from constructed its argument out of primary sources; but you can't perform such original research here - our job is to report what the best sources say, not to use those sources to construct additional arguments or to make additional points.

Some of this is probably doable, but the main thing is that you first ought to read the policies on WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:BLP, and WP:SYNTH. The copyvio issue aside, the key problem with the paragraph you're trying to add now is that you're performing your own personal interpretation of primary sources. That's actually worse than just citing the opinion piece directly. Realistically, your options are to say "here's Andrew Mark Bennett's opinion" (and convince people here that Bennett is such a noteworthy person that his personal opinion is WP:DUE) or to find a non-opinion source stating the same general points that he did. And - even if you described it as just Bennett's personal opinion - I think you'd have trouble convincing anyone to devote such a large paragraph to what's essentially one random op-ed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom Gerard listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Gerard. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 edits

Regarding this edit ..it insert that the ADL is a "far-left" organisation, based on:

• Gelman, Emmaia (2019-05-21). "The Anti-Defamation League Is Not What It Seems". Boston Review. Retrieved 2019-09-22. and
• Politics (2017-07-28). "Anti-Defamation League's Slide Into Another Left-Wing Pressure Group". The Federalist. Retrieved 2019-09-22.

The first source says exactly the opposite: that ADL is used against left wing causes. The second source is Bethany Mandel, who I am not sure count as WP:RS for this article, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that calling the ADL far-left is totally ludicrous. Zero^talk 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree we need really good sources for it per WP:REDFLAG --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube Censorship

I think it is important to mention that the ADL has played a role in determining what content to remove from YouTube. There are several sources that point to this: https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/05/adl-praises-youtube-for-decision-to-remove-racist-extremist-content/ https://bigleaguepolitics.com/youtube-caves-to-adl-removes-top-right-wing-channels-with-no-terms-of-service-violations/ They even admitted to partnering with Google and YouTube themselves: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-applauds-google-and-youtube-in-expanding-initiative-to-fight-online-hate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

BigLeaguePolitics is not a journalistic outlet, it’s a partisan blog in the model of DailyKos - it cannot be used to support claims of fact. Sure, the ADL has worked with YouTube to remove extremist content - we can mention that. But your spin on it doesn’t appear to be supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to use BigLeaguePolitics as an example of a partisan criticism of the policy. I added a source in which a law professor argued that social media censorship may constitute a breach of the public trust, because of promissory estoppel. Unfortunately that got edited out of the article. https://www.wired.com/story/chuck-johnson-twitter-free-speech-lawsuit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wired source does not mention the words "Anti-Defamation League" anywhere in the article. To use it in this article as inferred criticism of the ADL is prohibited original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV requires that if we are going to offer opinions about something, we include both negative and positive views.

Second of all, Big League Politics is, as its Wikipedia article discusses, an extremist far-right website known for promoting false and defamatory conspiracy theories. It's not usable as a source here at all whatsoever - we literally don't care what they say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove the other source then, the one that mentioned ADL's discrimination against BDS? http://bostonreview.net/politics/emmaia-gelman-anti-defamation-league-not-what-it-seems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts On My Recently Added Circumcision Paragraph

Alright, time to talk about circumcision! I added a paragraph about ADL's views on circumcision, and I think it is worth noting a concern here. Namely, while I think Jonathan Greenblatt's letter to the Parliament of Iceland and the Reykjavík Grapevine's interpretation of this letter as a threat are important enough such that it should be mentioned in this article, I wish to add it in a way that best respects neutrality. I put it all in one paragraph in the "Political positions" section and mentioned the threat interpretation at the end; I wasn't sure if this warranted creating a whole new subsection in the "Controversies" section. However, since the "Political positions" section generally doesn't include criticism of the ADL's positions, I can respect that my decision may not be the most neutral one. Perhaps the solution is to leave all of my paragraph as it is, perhaps we should break off the part about Iceland into a new subsection of the "Controversies" section, or perhaps we should do something else entirely. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has any thoughts to share.--EditorCirc (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has removed most of this, which I support. Almost all of the sources you cited are press releases or similar. The article should summarize this information according to independent sources, with press releases only used, with restraint, to fill-in uncontroversial details. Any specific examples of this position should be contextualized by better sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for taking such a long time to handle this. Another user actually reverted the removal, but I did go ahead and add news articles as sources (along with doing some trimming of the part I was concerned about to hopefully avoid bias), so the circumcision paragraph is no longer primarily reliant on press releases for sources. EditorCirc (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Amazing!

Any reference to the 1993 Roy Bullock/domestic spying scandal, which made headlines in every leading paper, has been carefully removed from this article. Wikipedia is even more corrupt than I thought it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:6180:3342:D5A4:629:6DAF:A182 (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to assume if you want to re-open discussion of the Roy Bullock issue you'll come back and try to begin a rational, fact-based discussion. Otherwise, I'll assume this is just another conspiracy theorist rant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Does this article work? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/10/19/jewish-groups-tactics-investigated/96daef6a-a325-4a8a-ba09-da211fc1ba8a/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2001:4300:69DC:C833:A830:363F (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede is unbalanced

I find it hard to believe that activities post-2014 merit almost half of the lede of an organization that has been active for over 100 years... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a common problem with a lot of articles about organizations. It is so much easier to find sources for recent events than historical ones, so there's where the focus lands. ImTheIP (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Un-American Activities Committee

Regarding this edit: This entire thing was far, far too vague. Further, at least one of the sources directly contradicts this claim. Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century specifically mentions that Jack Tenney had labeled "several departments of the ADL as subversive" and had described the AJC as "a communist front". Saying that "It has been alleged" is both vague and a misrepresentation of the source. It almost certainly was "alleged" by someone or other, but the article needs to properly contextualize who is doing the alleging, and indicate to readers why this would matter. Otherwise this is just spreading 70-year old conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for your vigilance. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Troubling the waters is explicit on pages 189-191 about the ADL-HUAC relationship:

"Seeing an opportunity to press their agenda, several Jewish groups also accepted invitations to appear before HUAC. More problematic, the ADL, AJC, and AJLAC also exchanged complimentary notes or shared information with J. Edgar Hoover, HUAC, and even Senator McCarthy."

"By cooperation, Steinbrink referred to the regular sharing of information the ADL gathered regarding suspicious organizations and meetings by sending observers and collecting printed materials and statistics."

Several examples of positive letters and memos from ADL chairman Meier Steinbrink to Hoover, mostly, are included.

The author concludes the short section: "Nevertheless, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, in the end, such cooperation and support encouraged witch hunts and legitimized the use of threat and character assassination which would later be used against civil rights leaders themselves."

So a more specific phrasing on this issue seems verifiable from this source. On the other hand, this is a short 3-page section from quite a long and detailed book. I'd want to see more coverage to show weight for inclusion. Maybe that's available in the other sources from the diff. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm. The 2nd and 3rd sources in that diff don't discuss the ADL at all. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Is coverage of Georgia's recent hate crime legislation's connection to the ADL covered by RS?

See paragraph: [1]

​The paragraph on Georgia hate crime legislation appears undue, and possibly not verified in independent RS. It is true that the legislation passed, and it is true (based on ADL press) that the ADL supported this legislation. However, the cited Vox source does not credit the ADL for the legislation's success, and I have been unable to find IS support for this connection. Freelance-frank (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

removed Freelance-frank (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed poorly-integrated criticism

Removed a paragraph due to lack of integration and failed V for cited statement (here). It includes some criticism of the ADL, but mostly of the SPLC. There have been a number of removed sources that include ADL criticism. Though they failed V for their statements or for poor integration, there have been quite a few. Taken altogether and reframed, there may be real, weighty criticism that has been stripped out over time.

• https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/12/the-hate-list/

Freelance-frank (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL's Wikipedia corporate advocacy activities

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy It's rather late, but there is a discussion taking place about eight accounts that are invovled in corporate advocacy efforts by the ADL. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"ADL" vs "the ADL"

I notice that in different places in the article, either of the following phrases might be used:

1. The ADL supports Israel as the Jewish homeland.
2. ADL supports Israel as the Jewish homeland.

I prefer the first, as it seems like typical usage, both for the expanded name ("The Anti-defamation League supports...") and in terms of how acronyms are usually used ("The SPLC says...", "The FBI released a..."). In most RS, the first seems to be used as well.

Is there something I'm missing about this? If not, I'll go ahead and copyedit the article to make this usage consistent. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say stick with whichever is more frequently used in the article. I think this is more of manual of style discussion on British vs American English. Graywalls (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

TODO

Lots of ADL history covered in RS is missing. Here are some thoughts on topics that appear due that I intend to include.

1. Add paragraph to early history on campaign against Ford's The Dearborn Independent
2. Add a possibly quite large section on infiltration of Nazi groups during 30s-40s (lots of RS coverage) Leon L. Lewis,
3. Add 2-3 sentences on History_of_the_Jews_in_Nicaragua#Sandinista_Period. Actually, maybe a S. America paragraph in general. Also comments on Argentina in 80-90s and Venezuela in 2000s-2010s.
4. Add historical leadership info: David A. Rose, etc.
5. Add 2-3 sentences on sparring with LaRouche movement. Diminished in recent years, but got coverage for a couple decades. LaRouche criminal trials, Lyndon LaRouche

Freelance-frank (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

paid content template

The user who has the largest share of authorship, Hersei (talk · contribs) is/was a paid editor contributing on behalf of ADL, per their page and their addition may not be NPOV. Posting this community expected notice in talk. Graywalls (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that cleanup is necessary and that the tag is relevant, as I describe at COIN. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Paraphrasing/summarizing content here from the COIN thread linked above by Freelance-frank, to support the paid contributions tag challenged by Pigsonthewing: There is heavy self-sourcing on the article Anti-Defamation League, which Freelance-frank has been cleaning out, and the paid editing by ADL employees in that article explains it. For anyone wondering about the presence of the paid contributions tag who isn't satisfied by that sentence, the archived COIN thread might be of interest. Freelance-frank has done a massive amount of in-depth and high-quality cleanup on this article, as well as making new improvements, and appears to still be going strong. Since the tag is still there I assume that Freelance-frank still believes the text of it to be true, i.e. that this article contains paid contributions and may require cleanup to comply with policy. Pigsonthewing, you're welcome to ask questions and Freelance-frank or anyone else is welcome to answer them, but I believe this comment should adequately support the presence of the tag unless/until there is consensus otherwise. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 04:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The requirement, - highlighted garishly in the template's documentation, and quoted in my edit summary - is "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." It is immediately followed by "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." Simply saying "their addition may not be NPOV", linking elsewhere, or even asserting that "there is heavy self-sourcing" (for which {{Self-published}} suffices), does not meet the requirement to "explain what is non-neutral". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's probably worth stating more explicitly the outlines of the problem with this page so that it is clear when the tag should be removed. Otherwise there's a tendency for this sort of tag to stick around, despite major changes to the article. I will respond first to what is currently wrong with the page, and then I will describe the changes I think we need to see before the tag is removed. I hope this greater clarity will be useful.

The main issue: a big part of neutrality as I understand it is proportional representation of facts based on their representation in reliable sources. This page fails due to massive inclusion of primary content by ADL-affiliated accounts and (slightly better, less frequent) opinions attributed to the ADL in RS. These additions nearly doubled the size of this article (~60k to ~100k characters). These additions were sourced almost entirely to the ADL website. Primary sources are not intrinsically bad, but in this case entire sections were included sourced only to the ADL itself, and these additions still occupy a large portion of the article. For this reason, it appears that NPOV has been violated through the inclusion of a quantity of primary content that overwhelms the secondary sourcing (example: this section).

There are other issues that emerged due to COI edits, but this is the main one I think needs to be addressed, and the one that introduced significant PROMO content (mostly PROMO point 5: PR).

I don't expect the page to be perfect before the tag is removed, but the article contains enough content that is 1) deeply unbalanced and 2) added by COI editors that I think it's still relevant.

Proposal: remove the tag once we have fixed the presence of subsections cited entirely to the ADL.

I think we are mostly there. I have removed a lot of the undue content from the later sections of the page. The place where I still have the most work to do is the Anti-Defamation_League#Goals section, which is a big mess. If it's just me continuing to work on this page, I think I will have removed the tag in 1-2 months at this pace. There will still be major NPOV issues in the article due to COI edits, but I'll have fixed the quantity of primary material by that point. Of course, I welcome any help. Freelance-frank (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What else needs to be removed to remove the banner? Anastacio21 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Primary research banner seems to be addressed? Anastacio21 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. For context, see the COI discussion. For explanation for what primary means, see WP:primary and note the number of references to the ADL itself. For explanation for how this connects to COI, see the edit counter for this page, noting that Hersei is an ADL employee. For further exposition, see the comments in this thread. Freelance-frank (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For numbers, "adl.org" appears around 70 times in the page source as of this moment. On March 23, this count was 105. Just before the ADL-affiliated editor started adding significant content to this page in March 2020, the count was 51. This count is simply a useful indicator of the weight of ADL commentary versus the 178 references total on the page. Changing this count in itself is not policy-related, but it is a useful tool for understanding the scope of the undue additions. Freelance-frank (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost the entire lede is sourced to the ADL's website, reading like an advert. I've never seen more WP:SOAP on an article and should still keep a promo banner Loganmac (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Added back. Useful to have a second opinion. Do you have suggestions about what must be changed to remove the tags? Obviously the lead, for starters. Any other sections full of SOAP? Freelance-frank (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank: The content in the lede is mostly fine, I would do less self-quotes about mission statements and try to find what WP:RS say they do, or if those statements have been quoted elsewhere they should be fine. Loganmac (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the criticism section in the lead?

There used to be a very adequately sourced and written part of the lead that dealt with criticism of the ADL. Looking at the page now, the lead mentions absolutely no criticism of ADL. What spurred the deletion of an entire section that had been selectively edited to be concise and sourced? Wertwert55 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved those criticisms to Anti-Defamation_League#Reception. Lead should summarize body. Those criticisms are okay, but they are somewhat specific (in terms of sourcing and recentism) and fail to summarize the criticisms and controversies in proportion to coverage in the body. Feel free to try summarizing the reception and controversies in a paragraph for the lead if you'd like. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I see it. I'll try to condense the most major and enduring criticisms into the lead. Wertwert55 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Prose and list tags

I.am.a.qwerty, you added the prose/list and excessive detail tags to the article. Could you clarify your reasons for adding these tags so these issues may be addressed?

For the prose/list tag, which sections in particular contain the lists you think could be reformulated?

For the excessive detail tag, which sections are overly detailed?

Freelance-frank (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I handled the list tag. Check my edits and see if you want to change anything and lmk. Perfecnot (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good Perfecnot. Thanks for taking on the issue! Freelance-frank (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the ADL shechita position due?

There have been edits regarding a recently-added section on the ADL position on Kosher slaughter. Here are recent edits and associated diffs:

1. subsection was added by Polska jest Najważniejsza (PjN) cited only to a December 2020 ADL press release (Oct. 30)
2. After searching briefly for secondary coverage and failing, I removed the section (Oct. 30)
3. PjN reverted my removal with edit summary "easdy to find sources. the ADF went mad, after poland refused to lift a ban on such a cruel practise" and added a citation to a July 2013 Haaretz article (Oct. 31)
4. I did some copyediting on the revised version, assuming on good faith for the time being that this article contains substantive coverage of the ADL, since I did not have Haaretz access at the time. (Oct. 31)
5. Volunteer Marek removed the entire section with edit summary "it’s pretty much WP:UNDUE" (Oct. 31)
6. PjN reverted Volunteer Marek, es: "this is no argument. "undue" doesn't hold here. it's an important position of the organization" (Oct 31)
7. I reverted PjN, fully removing the section, with es "Rv, please take it to talk and explain DUE" ([Rv, please take it to talk and explain DUE Oct. 31])
8. Reflecktor added the section back with es "This should be discussed on the talk page" (Nov. 2)

So as it stands, here is the statuus as I see it:

• Two editors support inclusion
• Two editors oppose inclusion
• These sentences are cited to an ADL press release from 2013 and a Haaretz article from 2020 discussing separate events

Here are my suggestions:

• For now, since there is not consensus to include this new material, I propose removing per BRD
• I suggest supporters of inclusion find additional citations to justify inclusion. I do not oppose inclusion on principle, but rather do not see current sourcing as sufficient

Freelance-frank (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My view is that some mention of the ADL view on shechita is due, like is the case with the circumcision issue. It would be undue if the section became too detailed or were one-sided, which I don't think is the case. Anyway, I agree that some consensus is necessary and I will try to offer additional input tomorrow after checking Polish language sources. As to due weight, I'd rather note that some sections already established like Relations with African-Americans seem to be disproportionally large. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable section size (that is, weight) depends on extent of coverage in independent reliable sources. Compare the number of citations in each section (shechita vs. circumcision vs. black-Jewish relations). More generally, if you feel there is undue weight on some other topic, then feel free to be BOLD and fix that. Undue weight in one place isn't fixed by adding undue weight in another.

However, my feeling on this changes if more citations on this topic emerge. Do you have more? Freelance-frank (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Looking forward to the Polish sources, thanks. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Freelance-frank That should be removed it’s WP:UNDUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it since the majority is in favour of removal. I would like the editors to take notice of the quote Polska jest Najważniejsza entered into this article that reads --> For a country still struggling to come to terms with its past treatment of Jews, it is outrageous to strike such a blow to the future of Jews in Poland[2]

@Polska jest Najważniejsza - Could you please explain why you chose to use this particular quote taken out of context and unrelated to the ADL? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I chose it because it represented the ADL's stance on the issue. Btw, could you stop underlining/bolding various parts of your posts? It's an eyesore and does not lend your views any additional credibility.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, let me remind you www.haaretz.com is a reliable source, so if you think some other passages would be more fitting, I'm fine with hearing your opinion.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Polska jest Najważniejsza - so that’s your explanation of why you chose to use this particular quote taken from Haaretz and use it in the general article about ADL that has nothing to do with Poland? Well, then that’s why it should be removed as it is WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:UNDUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Polska jest Najważniejsza - I will also remind you that you are doing exactly the same thing on other articles. Refer to this conversation.[3] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Disregarding specific problems with specific sources or specific pieces of content, which can be remedied without wholesale removal of the content, I am not sure how it is undue? I have not seen an explanation in either the edit summaries or on the talk page as to how this is the case. Reflecktor (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

500/30. Volunteer Marek 19:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain what that's supposed to mean. Reflecktor (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reflecktor - Undue weight can be given in several ways, including the depth of detail. In this particular case, a coatrack text (WP:COAT) was possibly purposefully recorded to promote a particular bias. Is that clear to you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am aware what undue weight is, there just (as yet) has not been provided an explanation as to how it is undue "disregarding specific problems with specific sources or specific pieces of content, which can be remedied without wholesale removal of the content", as said in my original comment. Reflecktor (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

DUE depends on the extent of coverage. If there are a bunch of independent reliable texts (preferably varied in source and over time), then something is more likely to be DUE. Right now there is a single Haaretz article that directly quotes a few sentences from Foxman without any additional analysis, background, or interpretation of the ADL's position. In general, this is not great. And given that the specific context that the ADL puts out dozens and dozens of position statements, I beyond usual don't think this is notable with current sourcing. Freelance-frank (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: no. The only thing we currently have are a Foxman quote and a press release. Freelance-frank (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole intro is from their own website

This editing is complete nonsense. 220.76.183.4 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've flagged the issues of possibly excessive use of primary sources in the section above. The article could potentially be improved by editing it to replace primary sources with secondary sources. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding political positions to include Democratic party issues

The ADL has taken on a dozen issues not relating to anti-semitism They list these issues on their site https://www.adl.org/what-we-do . The political positions paragraph needs expansion. Broadly they have taken on many issues besides antisemitism-- Combat Extremism and Hate, Bullying & Cyberbullying Prevention, Promote Respectful Schools & Communities, Immigrant & Refugee Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Rights, Women’s Equity (and abortion rights), Education Equity, Criminal Justice Reform, Race & Racial Justice, Free Speech, Domestic Extremism. 173.246.202.44 (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Coverage in a Wikipedia article usually requires third-party coverage. If you find reliable sources that cover these topics, then it will be easier to include those positions. Lacking reliable secondary coverage, those positions will probably not easily be included. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

There's a duplicate date argument of "date=January 8, 2021" in this reference:

In early January 2021, the ADL called for the removal of Donald Trump as President in response to the storming of the United States Capitol and described the relationship of the storming of the Capitol to the far-right and antisemitic groups.

References

Can someone please remove one of the duplicate args? Thanks. Storchy (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Storchy (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Article review

I have reviewed the article and do not see systemic issues of a level requiring a maintenance tag at the top. I did remove an entire section about a petty lawsuit that settled for $350,000. The page of text about this lawsuit violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. [4] Otherwise, if there are remaining issues of concern to anyone, please list them specifically and I or others will try to fix them. If you feel a maintenance tag is needed, do try to be as specific as possible. Affix the tag to specific statements or sections whenever feasible. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks for the cleanup. Being the editor who initially tagged that section, I agree with significantly reducing it. However, given the news coverage spanning over a decade, I think at least a sentence or two about the Denver case is due. Are you opposed to a sentence or two about it being added back to the article? Freelance-frank (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. Let's try and see how it reads. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Jehochman Added back a summary of this material. I omitted some detail to avoid bloating this coverage. If further demonstration of weight is needed, I stumbled across additional sources covering this topic that I could include. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I am rating this C class, not B, because it appears to have gaps in coverage, could use better sourcing (still heavy on primary sources), and some sections might be pruned further. Some of the content rambles. This article has identifiable problems, but they do not appear so severe that an orange maintenance tag would be warranted above the lead. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you could highlight any sections in particular for pruning or gaps in coverage, I would appreciate that and would work on those issues. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The first obvious thing is that there's a 1970's section and a 1990's section but no 1980's section. Either that should be created, or the history should be organized into broader categories than decades. Second thing is to reduce the reliance on primary sources. There are something like 85 citations to adl.org. Ideally some of these would be changed to cite secondary sources, or at least secondary sources would be added to reinforce them. I've tagged a few instances as examples with {{primary-inline}}, but there are probably many more examples. If you can address those two issues this article might rate B class, or even better. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

More context needed re Leo Frank

The article states the following;

"The Anti-Defamation League was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews; the then recent contentious conviction of Leo Frank was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

How it read to me

I did not understand the statement because I did not have the particulars of Leo Frank without drilling down. In my opinion more context is needed about Leo Frank.

Contention with the word Contentious

A single world does not provide me (as a reader) with a better understanding; perhaps more context is needed. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Implemented change

"The Anti-Defamation League was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews. The conviction of Leo Frank for the murder of a 13 year old, with allegations from the press that antisemitism contributed to his conviction, was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL.[8][9]"

This way a reader knows why Adolf Kraus was relevant to the article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

typo -- cannot fix myself as page is protected

"ballot successful initiative"

should be "successful ballot initiative"

2603:6081:1500:32B8:9961:22A:84D5:3723 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Section "Editing its own Wikipedia page"

I'm just a copy editor, not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but this recently added good-faith section seems to me to fail on notability (WP:N) and due emphasis (WP:DUE) grounds. As I read it, notability requires independent, verifiable sources such as outside journalism articles. But this topic almost by definition doesn't matter to anybody but Wikipedia editors and isn't likely to be widely covered outside of Wikipedia -- that is, isn't likely to have any impact on the world (WP:IMPACT). In terms of its importance, it is clearly not comparable to the other 3 subsections in the Controversies section.

I've seen a lot of Wikipedia articles that include egregious, cringeworthy self-promotion, but I've never seen a similar section elsewhere, even though this must be a fairly common issue. It seems to me that the remedy for it is that any biased content is challenged and removed, not that it becomes lasting Wikipedia content in and of itself. Surely this must have been addressed somewhere in policy docs so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here; does anyone know of such a policy? I can't think of a way to search.

In the absence of a strong rationale for keeping the section, I propose that it be deleted. Gould363 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gould363Hi, I added the section. It was considered noteworthy enough for the The Forward, a 125-year-old Jewish-interest publication, to report on it, so it obviously holds "notability" not solely for Wikipedia editors, but for the Jewish community as well, at the very least.

"Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source." I have adequately reproduced the accusations against the ADL on this matter, as well as the ADL's defense. It is true that, as of now, I only have a single source. It does not appear to be on Wikipedia's list of sources, prohibited or otherwise, and the article is obviously very well-sourced, so I don't think it's veracity can be called into dispute. I think the article reports on the subject very neutrally, addressing both sides, and I believe I have reproduced that adequately in my reproduction of the information.

Could you explain to me what you mean by "outside journalism articles", as well as be more specific regarding what Wikipedia guidelines that you think the inclusion of this story may violate? Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Harry. Agreed, the Forward is a more than reputable source of outside journalism (albeit one not entirely above the fray), so the material passes on that criterion. (Or does the criterion call for multiple sources?) I'm just trying to put a finger on why it still doesn't seem like normal Wikipedia content to me. I keep coming back to: it seems to me to fail the 'undue emphasis' test (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight). It is in no way of comparable importance to "New antisemitism concept", "Armenian genocide denial", or "Park51 Community Center opposition". Giving it a section of comparable weight to those places undue weight on it.

I'll poke around and see if I can find some guidance. Gould363 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is important from the perspective of transparency and potential misinformation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This does seem undue as a full subsection, and probably at all. Coverage in a Wikipedia article should be proportionate to the level of coverage, and a single article about this incident is not much for the ADL, a high-profile organization. It should also be considered whether this incident is likely to be significant to a reader in the future, partially indicated by whether this incident is ever mentioned again by RS. At current level of coverage demonstrated, this seems best excluded, or at most summarized in a single sentence. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, judging from the scale of it, I think current level of coverage is correct, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

When you say "scale of it", what do you mean? Freelance-frank (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

COI editing happens all the time; random people editing about their friends, or jobs. This is different: a NGO which actually train its employers (1+8) to edit wikipedia. This reminds me of CAMERA campaign at Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

But the cited article is just one cited article, and it frames this issue more on Wikipedia dynamics of this COI edge case than as relevant to the ADL itself. This seems to be a case where an on-wiki kerfuffle is relevant to us as editors, but for which there is insufficient RS coverage to support inclusion, especially when weighed against topics with greater depth of coverage. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would you say that the Forward article is mostly concerned with Wikipedia? The Forward is a Jewish publication, concerned mostly with Jewish issues, not those related to Wikipedia, and the ADL is a Jewish organization. The Forward is reporting on it because it is of interest to Jews, not just Wikipedia editors. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The point is that the Forward article is just a single article. Wikipedia coverage of the ADL should be representative of the large mass of ADL coverage out there in the world's reliable sources. Gould363 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. That is one half of the issue with this sourcing. The other half is that the Forward coverage is more about Wikipedia's view of the ADL than it is about the ADL itself. In the Signpost blurb about this article, Smallbones summarizes the article as "recounting a March–April discussion at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard." I think that's exactly correct. The article primarily discusses how Wikipedia editors tried to grapple with the unusual COI issue, and this is part of a broader context in which communities often find Wikipedia's interpretations of their behaviors unusual and interesting. But 1) that is only adjacent to what is directly relevant to the ADL directly, 2) if this is relevant at all (I think not with this level of coverage), we don't need every single detail, and 3) there is no evidence of controversy beyond the COI noticeboard discussion. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but as I read it, there is nothing prohibited about a nonprofit training its employees to edit Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Practices not regarded as COI. In Freelance-frank's words, it's at best an edge case. The only thing they did that was wrong was edit the ADL page itself without disclosure. And the remedy for that is that the interests are disclosed and any questionable edits are reviewed, which has presumably already happened. Gould363 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because I was pinged above I'll add a few random thoughts here

• This discussion shouldn't be about "notability" which applies to the subject of the article itself - the ADL is definitely notable.
• WP:Due is the main question here, but that's a matter for consensus to decide. IMHO the ADL is about a lot of things, and there are certainly some controversies - this little controversy might add a very small part to those controversies. Or maybe not.
• Forward is a good source here - or whenever it's reporting on (American?) Judaism, but there are often better sources if it is reporting on other topics. Similarly, I'm egotistical enough to say that The Signpost is a good source when (as always) we're reporting on Wikipedia or the WMF. There are likely 2-3 stories in the press each month about issues regarding Wikipedia that are important to the general public, but we sometimes report the same stories better, occasionally much better. Cite the best source available! When in doubt use 2 stories.
• Did the ADL commit a major Wiki-crime here? No, in general they can be of great service by editing Wikipedia. I'll suggest they don't cite themselves so often though. And they shouldn't be editing this article - they're just likely to make minor edits that have minor POV problems, e.g. they might push controversies down the page where fewer people will see them, or use vocabulary that shows a pro-ADL POV. And they will just do this naturally without intending to. Leave well enough alone.
• Should Wikipedians report in articles about companies that abuse Wikipedia's editing processes? I think so, but let's not do it in minor cases. And we need to make every attempt to avoid our own natural biases. But if it's important enough, who else is more qualified to report paid editing abuse? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

. Smallbones, I am confused. Are you talking about the Jewish Defense League (JDL) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)? These are dramatically different organizations. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 Whoops, that was a very bad typo!!! I've corrected my mistake above by changing all my JDLs to ADLs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph of "origins" disupute

This is how the paragraph had appeared as of 20:19, 11 March 2023:

"The ADL was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews. The conviction of Atlanta B'nai B'rith President Leo Frank, for the murder of a 13 year old was met with allegations from the press that antisemitism contributed to his conviction. The role that antisemitism played in regards to Frank's conviction was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

@Cogitamus Credimus changed it, in the revision as of 16:35, 13 March 2023, to:

"The ADL was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews. The conviction of Atlanta B'nai B'rith President Leo Frank for the murder of his 13-year-old employee was met with allegations from Jewish press that antisemitism contributed to his conviction. The alleged role that antisemitism played in regards to Frank's conviction was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

He added the detail that Mary Phagan was an employee of Frank's, and that the allegations came specifically from the Jewish press, not the press in general.

@Abinavmishra changed it back, citing Wikipedia:ALLEGED. Abinavmishra did not explain why he was citing "Alleged", and I haven't been able to figure out why, as it doesn't seem at all relevant to the issue.

Furthermore, when I checked the source (there are two; Moore, I was able to access, as it is on Internet Archive, while Chanes, I could not), there didn't seem to be anything about "allegations" of Frank's innocence from the press. In fact, it seemed to state the exact opposite: that members of B'nai B'rith accused the press of encouraging Frank's conviction. It seems that the source was saying that the press alleged that Frank was guilty, not innocent, according to Moore. The only defenders of Frank listed in the Moore source were other B'nai B'rith members, who were claiming about the "antisemitic" lies of the press.

Considering that the source used was actually contrary to both revisions, I changed it to:

"The ADL was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews. The conviction of Atlanta B'nai B'rith President Leo Frank for the murder of his 13-year-old employee was met with allegations from Frank's fellow B'nai B'rith members that antisemitism had contributed to his conviction. The alleged role that antisemitism played in regards to Frank's conviction was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

I only changed it to what the source already used said. If the other source, which I don't have access to, says something different, then that is an issue in itself, because it would mean that the sources contradict each other: the press can't both have been entirely responsible for Frank's murder conviction, and at the same time the driving force behind claims of his innocence. The revision I made is just an objective retelling of what is already in the source, a source I didn't even add.

In the note attached to my revision, I wrote: "Not sure why you undid this revision. I do not see what "WP:Alleged" has to do with this edit. Of the two sources included, only one is currently accessible to me (Moore), and it seems to support that it was primarily Jewish leaders who complained, and seems to affirm that it was not the press generally, but Jews specifically. If you disagree, please bring it up in the talk-page."

However, @Llll5032 reverted the edit again, without posting on the talk-page first, writing: "rv, cited sources do not appear to support that interpretation, see WP:RS; a new interpretation would require a new source."

I do not know what he could possibly mean by this. The source does not say that the press alleged that Frank was innocent. It says the exact opposite: it alleged that he was guilty. The only defenders of Frank mentioned in the source are several other B'nai B'rith members, who blamed the press alone for his conviction. I do not understand how @Abinavmishra and @Llll5032 could misinterpret this, but maybe they can explain here. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

We go by what published RS say. See WP:OR: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." If you cite RS carefully and summarize only what RS say, without any new analysis, then your edits are less likely to be reverted. Perhaps you could find more sources about the ADL in the Leo Frank article. Llll5032 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Where do you think that it says in either of the sources that the press at the time alleged that Frank was innocent? Please quote the source. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you read this section of the Leo Frank article? Llll5032 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a source for another Wikipedia article. The edits in question on the ADL Wikipedia article actually align with the existing sources for the statements. Right now, the sources do not actually support the statements for which they are provided and in fact actually support the proposed edits by @Harry Sibelius. Thus, if your objection to the edits is about sources, then it can be dismissed. Cogitamus Credimus (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggested that Harry read the Frank article to find more sources because Harry pointed out that the sources currently cited in this article are not fully readable on the internet. Can you cite sources with footquotes for your proposed edits? Llll5032 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, done. I also see Abinavmishra's point regarding "alleged." I hadn't noticed that change before. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032 Why did you specifically remove the phrases "financial pressure" and "censor" from accounts of the ADL's methods of dealing with antisemitism, even though they are used in the Moore source? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Each of the descriptions you mention appear to be used by the source once, with other descriptions more plentiful. "Censorship" was used only in analysis of how it "proposed to deal" with antisemitic theatrical productions, not the journalism, and it was unclear from this source if it occurred. "Boycotts and pressuring advertisers" is more specific than "financial pressure" and is also described by the RS. Do other reliable sources use the phrasing you are asking about? If they do, you could make a WP:DUE argument for inclusion. Llll5032 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They are a Zionist organization why is this being removed

I have made an edit where I named the adl Zionist as it is clearly Zionist. They don't recognize Palestine, they are a Jewish organization that promotes Israel so it is obviously Zionist. Why does this get removed Tinman921 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tinman921 Per the box labeled "active arbitration remedies" at the top of this page, you are not eligible to make that edit, because it relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred is correct. Tinman921 is also correct about the ADL. Someone permitted should add it with a good source. Zero^talk 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A good source but also a proper quote from a reputable external reference needs to be provided to allow readers to verify the information easily. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)(ArbComBlock as a Jacurek sock)