Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluerasberry (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 24 June 2024 (→‎Request help for The Signpost: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Jewish organization" not supported by sources


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
    −
    is a New York–based international Jewish non-governmental organization and advocacy group
    		+
    is a New York–based international non-governmental organization and advocacy group
  • Why it should be changed: I was not able to find any RS inside or outside the article which currently refers to the ADL as a "jewish organization". ADL has roots in a jewish organization, but it has since split and become independent, as described in the article lede. For what it's worth, the ADL doesn't refer to itself as a Jewish organization anywhere [1], so it seems bizarre to refer to it this way in the article.

spintheer (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source designating the ADL as a jewish organisation. -- 41.66.98.68 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: The pressure from the ADL to cancel a Bard College class was unsuccessful

In the section on College classes and student organizations, it would be worthwhile to state whether the pressure from the ADL caused Bard College to cancel the class. Based on the cited article, it sounds like the class was held as planned. The article says an Israeli diplomat "tried to persuade" Bard, and "The course was designed and taught by Nathan Thrall" (with the past-tense "taught" indicating the the class was not canceled).

−
In early 2023, the ADL pressured Bard College to cancel a course called "Apartheid in Israel-Palestine"
+
In early 2023, the ADL unsuccessfully pressured Bard College to cancel a course called "Apartheid in Israel-Palestine"

The-erinaceous-one (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chetsford (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

[For 2020s history section:]

In June 2024, the progressive magazine Jewish Currents published a study analyzing the ADL's antisemitic incidents tracker. The study found a number of issues with the tracker, including unclear criteria for incidents, a lack of differentiation by degree, and a lack of political context. The analysts argued that these issues caused the tracker to erroneously count anti-Zionist political demonstrations as antisemitic incidents, and undercount white nationalist incidents and organizing. They concluded: "Since we found that most alleged antisemitic incidents in the Palestine solidarity movement lacked merit, the legitimately antisemitic Palestine-related incidents would appear as mere statistical noise when compared with the stunning growth of organized white nationalism." These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right.[1] Woolstation (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm unclear if the sentence "These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right." is a summary of material found in the source or is an editorial addendum. If it's the latter, it's unsuitable for inclusion. (I was not able to locate it in the source cited, but feel free to correct me if I missed it somewhere.) Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Burley, Shane; ben Avraham, Jonah (June 17, 2024). "Examining the ADL's Antisemitism Audit". Jewish Currents. Retrieved 18 June 2024.

The lead of this article

It's technically compliant with MOS:LEAD, however, I'd suggest the lead section is currently somewhat unwieldly and unreadable and may be a little WP:UNDUE for the amount of word count (as a percent of the total) it assigns to controversy and criticism. The third paragraph, specifically, probably could be rolled into the final paragraph and a lot of the details -- which are more suitable for the body -- trimmed. Additionally, information about 2019 revenue and finances is a snapshot in time better limited to the infobox and body than the lead (moreover, it's not currently in the body at all, as required by MOS:LEADREL). Anyway, just a suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED THREAD
Wrong place for this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am against the ban on ADL

The ADL may have a point of view, but it is not a propaganda organization and is a critical organization that fights hate not only against Jews but any marginalized community. We can care about Palestinians in Gaza without vilifying Israel. There has been lot of antisemitic reaction to the war in Gaza and now is not the time to undercut an institution critical to fighting hate. The editors dismissal the IHRA definition of antisemitism is bias in its own right. I imagine it’s over the portion stating that being anti-Zionist is a form of antisemitism. That denying Jews the right to self-determination in their historical homeland delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist. (No one questions other countries right to exist and Israel is a democracy, no matter how flawed). In any case, it’s too complicated for me to go into here, but American Jews are in crisis and ADL is a well regarded American institution fighting hate. I have been a donor to Wikipedia and I ask that you reconsider. Cynthia Wolff NYC 162.83.190.106 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cynthia Wolff NYC, and welcome to Wikipedia. This page is for discussing improvements to the en-WP article about ADL. You may want to take a look at WP:RSN, where discussions are ongoing at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League. That particular discussion started in early April, so it's a fairly long read. Part of it is closed, but that closure has been challenged at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contested_RfC_non-admin_partial_close. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Anti-Defamation_League#Wikipedia_determination_of_unreliability

Per sources this deserves a mention, but per WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NAVELGAZING etc, current content is way too much. Make it a sentence or 2. On the topic of ADL, this is a minor blip, at least today. Glad to see it's not in the WP:LEAD atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the navelgazing grows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors deem ADL "generally unreliable"

Media

Discussions on Wikipedia

Previous conflict of interest editing issue from 2021

@Coretheapple, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Chetsford: <---- Thanks for sharing this in the Wikipedia

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merging the other two threads under yours was a very good idea, but whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undone! 4 threads now. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media is taking note of the controversy. I think journalitic citations are in order such as [2]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [3] Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request help for The Signpost

The Signpost is Wikipedia's own community newsletter for Wikipedia news. Anyone can edit Signpost articles in the newsroom before publication. The next issue is due to be published 28 June.

If anyone is interested and available to develop the news story about Wikipedia's ADL evaluation and the resulting news media, then please contribute at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_the_media. Right now the story is framed as a news summary, but if anyone feels strongly, they can propose an opinion piece for this issue or any future issue. If anyone has comments about the news then please post to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. That newsroom, and not this Wikipedia article talk page, is the place to discuss the Wikipedia community narrative of this story. It is likely that Wikipedia's news story will influence future journalism on this topic. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Did you see this?:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks, that link is now in the news article. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two lead notes to be discussed

  1. In an early campaign, ADL and allied groups pressured the automaker Henry Ford, who had published virulently antisemitic propaganda. Pressured him to do what? Or in what direction?
  2. The ADL did not recognize the Armenian genocide until 2007, instead calling it a "massacre" and an "atrocity" in years prior. Does this deserve to be one of five activities/positions taken by the ADL described in the lead? It does not seem like a significant enough aspect of the organization as it's treated in reliable secondary sources.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: Armenian genocide denial is very much a prominent controversy documented in the article. MOS:LEDE states that the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) moved from a new section by ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it’s prominent, but I don’t believe that it is in the top five most significant aspects of the organization’s history of advocacy, which its placement in the lead implied. What if mention of Armenian genocide denial was moved to the final lead paragraph where its controversies are discussed? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: It's given due weight in the body, so the lede should reflect that, but I don't have any preference to which lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

In the discussion of the ADL's critique of SJP, the article fails to mention that SJP and its parent organizations have been sued for precisely what the ADL asserted (giving material support to HAMAS). [5]https://www.foxnews.com/us/major-us-law-firm-brings-case-against-students-justice-palestine-substantial-assistance-hamas

The firms filing suit are subject to Fed. R. 11 Sanctions for bringing a suit known to be meritless, and as such, the claims have inherent credibility. The article should reference as much to avoid the existing one-sided critique of the ADL's assertions re SJP. Willsue4food (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These comments about sanctions are original research. Please propose a reliable (non-tabloid) source which specifically mentions this lawsuit as it relates to the ADL. If reliable sources do not explain how this lawsuit relates to the ADL, neither should this article. To put it more broadly, this is an encyclopedia, so our goal isn't just to list events we think are relevant, it is to provide context, and the way we do that is via reliable (mostly independent) sources about the ADL. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the link goes to a Fox News article (which I acknowledge is a biased source), the article specifically links to the Complaint filed in the case. The original Complaint is posted at: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/05/National-Jewish-Advocacy-Center-the-Schoen-Law-Firm-and-the-Holtzman-Vogel-law-firm-vs-1.pdf. (And I confirmed the accuracy of the copy of the Complaint by downloading the same from Pacer).
In the Wikipedia article, it notes "Two years later, in 2024, the ADL asserted that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) had violated federal law concerning material support for Hamas, a statement that both The Nation and The Intercept observed was made without any evidence." The Complaint makes the same allegation that the ADL made (in significant detail), which the cited Ackerman article accused of being defamatory, and provides specific evidence to support the same. To that extent, I recommend that the following be appended at the end of the foregoing sentence: "However, on May 1, 2024, Greenberg Trauig, and other law firms, filed a detailed Complaint, with supporting exhibits, on behalf of several individuals who were harmed by the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, echoing the ADL's assertion, the Complaint alleges that the National Students for Justice in Palestine violated, and continues to violate, federal law by providing material support for Hamas. The action remains pending."
The Complaint (and the supporting exhibits) provide context for the allegations made by the ADL. Ackerman's article accuses ADL of defaming SJP, and seeks to refute the allegation that the SJP provides material support for Hamas. The Complaint provides a counterpoint to the same and avoids the erroneous impression left by the article that the ADL was making the accusation in a vacuum.
Further, the Complaint itself references ADL research in at least one area. Willsue4food (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The mere fact a lawsuit occurred is insufficient to include in a WP article unless it is covered by RS. Per WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A lawsuit that was not covered by any RS does not represent a "significant view ... published by reliable sources" merely because we can prove it occurred. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by RS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/02/lawsuit-students-palestinian-protests-hamas/
Washington Post is a RS.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/hamas-victims-sue-pro-palestinian-groups-amid-us-campus-protests
Also covered by Bloomberg, another RS Willsue4food (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS Lawsuits are notoriously common in the US. The fact it is covered by RS does not necessarily mean it meets WP:WEIGHT. Alas, sanctions for bringing meritless suits are extremely rare and the possibility does not provide inherent credibility to lawsuits. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior comment disagreed with the proposed edit because of the claim the lawsuit was not covered by RS. My response was that it was covered by RS.
The requested edit was to provides a counterpoint to the opinion article accusing the ADL of defaming SJP by making the allegation. The ADL's accusation was not made in a vacuum, and by linking only to the accusation by Ackerman that the claim was without fact, and not noting that others have made the same claims (supported by evidence), provides a slanted view on the issue. This is especially important as while the Nation is considered a RS, the linked Ackerman piece is an opinion piece.
And while Rule 11 sanctions are rare, I would note that the Complaint includes detailed evidence in support of the claims -- an issue which the Ackerman opinion piece asserts is lacking. Willsue4food (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint is just allegations and is not a reliable source. Lawsuits generally throw everything at the wall within reach. As for Ackerman saying the lawsuit is without merit; that is an automatic response. So, we say the lawsuit was filed and the allegations were denied. In the case that something comes of the lawsuit, then we can update the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So just those two? Seems insufficient. Also, wouldn't this be more appropriate at the SJP article, anyway? Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, other news outlets (of varying degree of reliability, and on both sides of the bias spectrum) covered the story as well. I just flagged two RS. A quick google search disclosed, among others:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article288250310.html
https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-attack-survivors-sue-student-protesters-1896451
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/31/october-7-survivors-are-suing-pro-palestinian-groups-but-what-is-the-aim
https://www.carolinajournal.com/federal-lawsuit-alleges-students-for-justice-in-palestine-is-a-hamas-front-group/
https://theintercept.com/2024/05/10/october-7-survivors-lawsuit-palestine-hamas-sjp-protests/
While it should be in the SJP article, I do continue to maintain that for balance in the ADL article, reference to the suit should be included as the article currently includes an opinion critique (the Ackerman piece) of the allegation. For example, after noting the Ackerman critique, the addition of just:
However, on May 1, 2024, Greenberg Trauig, and other law firms, filed suit on behalf of several individuals who were harmed by the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Complaint alleges that the National Students for Justice in Palestine violated, and continues to violate, federal law by providing material support for Hamas. The action remains pending.
Citations would be:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/02/lawsuit-students-palestinian-protests-hamas/
and
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/hamas-victims-sue-pro-palestinian-groups-amid-us-campus-protests
Willsue4food (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at all these references and I can't find any of them that mention the ADL. This is an article on the ADL. Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need reliable, independent sources to explain for us why this this lawsuit is encyclopedically important to the ADL. Sources which do not mention the ADL are useless for this purpose. It is also not enough for the ADL to be mentioned in the lawsuit itself as a WP:PRIMARY document. Instead, we need sources to explain why this matters to the ADL. We cannot fill in this gap with out own understanding of the topic, because that is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Historians' Consensus of Frank's Innocence

Regarding: "historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent. [25]" there is no such consensus. The evidence in fact overwhelmingly points to Leo Frank's guilt. Instead, this section should read, "In a May 13, 2009 column in the pro-Zionist, ADL-sympathizing Jewish publication 'Forward', Allison Gaudet Yarrow claimed 'historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent' without providing support for her claim. Leo Frank's attorney stating on his deathbed that he believed Frank was innocent, and, 72 years after the fact, Steve Oney, editor of Los Angeles Magazine, stating that he too believed in Frank's innocence, by no means constitutes any consensus of historians. [25]" 68.96.85.98 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Provide sourcing please and use WP:EDITREQUEST. There is an entire section on his article suggesting (proving) that he was innocent.
The phrase "pro-Zionist, ADL-sympathizing Jewish publication 'Forward'" is egregiously WP:UNDUE.
Leo Frank was killed by an antisemitic lynching before the state of Israel existed. I'm tempted to remove this as WP:TROLLING. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADL and Wikipedia using biased DNA studies to justify Right of Return

Please add the following sentence/paragraph to the end of the Reception and controversies section

ADL has unjustly criticized distinguished Israeli-American Geneticist Eran Elhaik's studies on the origin of Jews, because they do not conform to the Zionist point of view that most contemporary Jews originated in Palestine, are genetically related, and therefore contemporary Jews have a genetic Right of Return to Palestine.

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/untangling-false-claims-about-ashkenazi-jews-khazars-and-israel

98.46.117.234 (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for obvious reasons Chetsford (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Khazar-origin theory is scientifically dubious, has been espoused by anti-Semites for decades, and is very much overshadowed by other more accurate and recent genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews that show around a mixture of southern European and Levantine genetics in most Ashkenazi ancestry. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Female_lineages:_Mitochondrial_DNA 68.129.152.243 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spying

How should ADL's spying on pro-Palestinian activists in the US be covered in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably shouldn't? not unless its some huge scandal that takes up a lot of notability and media presence.
It belongs in a section, sure, but its probably covered by that last sentence in the lede about how the ADL has done pro-Israel advocacy. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community

"In June 2024, the Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I explicitly don't want to comment upon this decision because I don't know much neither about this decision nor the ADL. However, this sentence lacks factual accuracy, in my opinion. It was the community of the English-language Wikipedia that did so. Being a long-time and active user of the German-language Wikipedia, I am somewhat irritated that this is presented as a decision of "the Wikipedia community". There are several articles in German-speaking countries repeating this claim that "the Wikipedia community" took this decision and we didn't even know what they were talking about. Please correct this sentence. Mautpreller (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mautpreller I think you're correct, so I made this edit:[6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mautpreller (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=1230785324"