Talk:ADL

"Anti-hate" group?

The ADL is not an anti-hate group, it is a special interest group to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people". I will edit this to reflect the change. 132.161.140.26 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a dispute about how to describe something on a disambiguation page, the general practice is to simply copy in whatever the first line of the actual article says. See also WP:MOSDAB. --El on ka 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources that describe it as an anti-hate group. Please to not push your personal POV over what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a disambiguation page is not to give an accurate descriptor, but just to provide navigational assistance. See WP:MOSDAB. So if the term "ADL" were linked on another page, someone could use a disambiguation page to quickly determine which article they really wanted to go to. If the first sentence in the actual article is too long, then just give it some short neutral summary, such as "interest group formed in the United States in 1913". Anyway, this entire page needs cleanup. The redlinks should be removed, the lines with no links should be removed, and the sources should be removed. It might also be worth breaking up the list into categories, such as "associations", "languages", "places", etc. --El on ka 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'anti-hate group" is a short, neutral summary. there's no need to change it. NoCal100 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anti-hate group is a short neutral summary of its rather lengthy statement of purpose. It's also well cited. I'm rather dismayed to see User:Meteormaker stalking me here, and removing cited information, all without even bothering to comment on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-hate group" does not appear anywhere in the article text, though I note that you lost no time to run and edit out both "Jewish" [1] and "interest group" [2], only eight minutes after Elonka made clear how disambig pages should be written: "When there is a dispute about how to describe something on a disambiguation page, the general practice is to simply copy in whatever the first line of the actual article says. " [3]. If you feel I have "stalked" you when I edited a page that you happened to have edited one week earlier, what's your verdict on NoCal, who reverted my edit only two minutes after it was made, on a page he never edited before? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]