Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

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). [1]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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Mautpreller I think you're correct, so I made this edit:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Mautpreller (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Bluerasberry Did you see this?:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks, that link is now in the news article. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Incoherent para

The 4th para of section "1990s" is incoherent. For example:

  • The sentence "Neither the Aronsons nor ADL ..." mentions a family called Aronson with no explanation of who they are/were. I'm guessing that this is the surname of the person who recorded the private conversations, but that's just a guess.
  • The para appears to say twice that federal wiretap law had changed to make it illegal to record conversations from a cordless phone and that ADL was unaware of this.

Misha Wolf (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to fix it, but more work is likely needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No Historians' Consensus of Frank's Innocence

One: this is almost totally irrelevant to the subject of this talk page; two: there is an extremely strong case that Frank was innocent; collapsing as trolling/POV-warring Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

 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)
Frank is- in fact- guilty. The charge that it was an "antisemitic lynching" is egregiously WP:UNDUE - absurd. Frank was lynched because he was found guilty of murdering a young girl. No article section is "proving" anything, that's 'wagging the dog;' using an entry to change what is fact of law. The Forward's motivations are absolutely essential to discussion, just as the recent Wiki finding of the ADL's bias, and the subsequent Wiki action are essential to factual entries. The person making the request is bringing fact, from what I see in good faith, to show that that phrase of the entry is biased, and needs to be removed. My concern is with your response, threatening to remove, censor a legitimate concern. Have another editor address the issue. 2600:1008:B193:362E:5188:E7F7:5B7D:45F8 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Frank was pardoned posthumously.[4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Frank continues to be, in fact, guilty of murdering Mary Phagan, a young girl.
Yours is another misleading statement in this short discussion.
From he very pardon board's order: "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon."
Your comment is a 'straw man' that misleads, steers the conversation away from the fact that Leo Frank was, and continues to be, convicted of murdering Mary Phagan.
The request to remove the phrase needs to be addressed by an unbiased editor. 2600:1008:B193:362E:5188:E7F7:5B7D:45F8 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
@GuardianH: There is consensus for its inclusion, as the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per MOS:LEDE, and the body has a section dedicated to this controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
If it's prominently covered in secondary sources regarding ADL, then it should be kept. But among Israel-Palestine, Wikipedia, and New antisemitism, the Armenian genocide is seldom mentioned with the ADL. So it's a controversy, but whether or not it's a prominent one is unclear. GuardianH (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It might be overweighted in the article body ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors deem ADL "generally unreliable"

Media

  • Elia-Shalev, Asaf (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
  • Marcus, Josh (19 June 2024). "Wikipedia calls top Jewish civil rights org 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis". The Independent.
  • MEE staff (18 June 2024). "Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report". Middle East Eye.
  • Arab News (19 June 2024). "Wikipedia labels prominent Israeli civil rights organization 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis, antisemitism". Arab News.

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)

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)
Undone! 4 threads now. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The media is taking note of the controversy. I think journalitic citations are in order such as [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done [6] Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Query: should this be mentioned in the lead section?

This issue has been mentioned in the lead section, but should it? Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it qualifies under LEDE: [The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. (Emphasis mine) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"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 [7], so it seems bizarre to refer to it this way in the article.

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

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)
Please provide a source designating the ADL as a jewish organisation. -- 41.66.98.68 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
In the section on the Wikipedia decision on the (un)reliability of the ADL, multiple sources are cited which describe the ADL as a Jewish organization. See
"Greenblatt commented that Wikipedia was "flat out wrong ... we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is".[245] An alliance of 43 American Jewish organizations collectively argued that Wikipedia was "stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself from" antisemitism.[245][246]" KHarbaugh (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

ADL letter on Students for Justice in Palestine

The paragraph on the letter dated October 25 in which the ADL requested that university administrations be vigilant that campus student groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine, not cross the boundary between support for Hamas's actions on October 7, for which the letter supplies evidence, to material support for Hamas, is mischaracterized as accusing SJP of material support for Palestine. Nowhere in the letter is this accusation made. The only evidence cited for this a pair of is articles in partisan journals that are opposed to the ADL. The original letter should be cited, or the sentence should be deleted

Here is the citation (easily found, so I do not understand why it is not referred to in the article, except that this sentence was clearly added by a supporter of the position of these partisan journals).


ADL and Brandeis Center Letter to Presidents of Colleges and Universities

https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-and-brandeis-center-letter-presidents-colleges-and-universities EGetzler (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If we include anything about the ADL open letter, we must also include the ACLU open letter blasting the ADL open letter. [8] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the first paragraph of the letter reads:
We write to you today on behalf of ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (the Brandeis Center) with an urgent request that your university investigate the activities of your campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for potential violations of 18 USC 2339A and B, and its state equivalents, that is, for potential violations of the prohibition against materially supporting a foreign terrorist organization.
It seems like you didn't read it. RAN1 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
is there coverage from outside the ADL about the letter?
Many pro-israeli groups will be claiming Providing material support for terrorism for most of these pro-palestinian organizations in the coming weeks and months, but many suits after 2010 have been mostly dismissed. (see US Campaign for Palestinian Rights#Reception User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to spinoff WP reliability section

Taking note of Gråbergs Gråa Sång's concerns regarding WP:PROPORTION, and noting that reporting on this subject has been continuing on a steady clip for closing on two weeks now, and seems unlikely to abate in the very near future, I suggest trimming the section on unreliability to a few sentences and spinning this off into a standalone article, leaving a main article template link at the ADL entry.
I took the liberty of drafting a proposed spinoff in userspace here by simply copying over all current text, as well as some text that previously existed here and was removed due to DUE, and adding in the more recent reporting of the WMF's reaction.
Does anyone have any thoughts? (Also, obviously, please edit this draft anyway you see fit.) Chetsford (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford Have you considered letting this issue be a part of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict instead of a separate article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
The text:
[...] the Wikipedia community concluded the ADL's lack of reliability extended to "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic", but "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned"
seems to describe two (related) areas of unreliability:
  • the intersection of antisemitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  • the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are concerned
Though the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict might provide a suitable home for coverage of the former, it seems to me that the latter, especially discussion of the relationship between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other, does not belong there. That discussion is closely related to the article Working definition of antisemitism. Jonathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that "we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is" (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/). As there are other, reputable, Jewish organizations which do not share ADL's equation between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other (see Nexus Task Force and https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-it-antisemitic-to-be-anti-zionist/), there are two possible interpretations of Greenblatt's statement:
  • The number of Jewish organizations supporting that equation is so much larger than the number questioning it that the latter can be disregarded.
  • The Jewish people who question that equation are not really Jewish.
It seems to me that this incident is leading to a further inflaming of the debate about the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and a further polarisation in the Jewish community about the relationship between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other. Those developments do not seem to me to be a good match for article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

onathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that "we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is" (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/).

The full quote was:

“We should listen to Black people when they tell us what racism is, and listen to LGBTQ groups when they tell us what homophobia is, and we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is,” Greenblatt said.

There is an evident methodological flaw in this simile, of course, that confuses constituencies who have suffered from discrimination, with the communities of scholars who analyse these varieties of discrimination. A further assumption is that ‘black people’, LGBTQ affiliates, and Jews are in each case homogeneous, and are all properly represented by one or more representative community organs. A third assumption is that these community bodies form their views by listening to what their respective constituents think. Well they do that, but, as anyone familiar with them knows, they also vie among themselves to convince their communities that their interpretation of their common experiences truly represents their interests. Having just written Black capitalism, I noted that fundamental rifts, never quite healed, run through its history, between proponents, critics and many who simply don’t care for the two ostensible options.
But the point I would make is that the ADL assisted AIPAC in causing Jamaal Bowman to lose his bid for re-election, indifferent to this talk about 'listening to Black people'. he was slammed for expressing sympathy for Palestinians, and that cancelled any sense that they take seriously any listening to Black people. Just as they are notoriously tone-deaf to dissent within Jewish communities.
Suffice it to compare, re the former this ADL comment, with Peter Beinart's commentary on what occurred. Things like that suggest that the ADL does have a conflict between its subscribing to universal values for all discriminate groups, and its Israel advocacy which deserves a measured section on this page.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång - I hadn't considered that but it seems like a reasonable idea. Chets|ford (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It does seem disproportionate here. +1 to a section in the existing Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. – SJ + 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Chetsford, I understand you've been working on a detail article with extensive detail, which deserves its own discussion. But the level of detail, section proliferation, and inclusion of lower-notability op-eds was growing out of keeping with the rest of the article here. I pared it back to something more historically proportionate. (still erring on the side of 'too much space' for this incident, imo, both due to its recency and because we should be more cautious about citing our own processes -- but readers may share some of the recency bias of editors).

Please reach some sort of consensus about a spinoff before flooding this table of contents with such detail. Even then I don't think it improves the article to include partisan commentary from pro- and anti-ADL organizations about developments like this. – SJ + 01:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sj - I can't really comment on your decision to censor some of these RS as much of the relevant content originated with other editors, I merely restored them after they were deleted, so I have no opinion on the relevance of the material to the article. It does seem ill-advised to institute this mass-cutting in the middle of an RfC on this very section and will certainly impact its outcome for those who were summoned by the bot and don't take time to view the history of the article. But if you think that's a good idea, I'll defer to your judgment. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Source selection and proportionality isn't censorship. I've again removed two specific bits of self-referential excess, discussed in a new section below. I see how your RFC references the current article text, but that's not a reason to let clear problems remain unaddressed for as long as it runs on. That said, I left the extensive external sources and section length as is. I appreciate your including the new option F. but think these are two separate questions: first, should details be in a separate article or section in an article dedicated to related controversies; and second, how much detail should be in this one. – SJ + 15:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sentiment check

Superseded by formal RfC here. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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 don't think an RfC is necessary, but -- based on the above conversation -- we seem to have general agreement of the need to spinoff the Wikipedia reliability section somewhere else, but no agreement on where to spin it off to ... could we do a flash sentiment check?

A: Keep the full reliability section at this article (Anti-Defamation League)
B: Spin the reliability section off into its own article
C: Merge the content of the reliability section with Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
D: Other (specify)

Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In the table of Reliable sources, there are 3 rows for ADL:
  • Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israel/Palestine conflict and antisemitism)
  • Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism)
  • Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israel/Palestine conflict, including related antisemitism)
The summaries for these 3 instances are, respectively:
  • "There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source ..."
  • "The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter ..."
  • "There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict ..."
AFAICS, it is the decision described in the 2nd of these 3 rows that has caused the largest backlash from the ADL and other Jewish establishment organizations. For example, Jonathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that "we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is" (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/).
So it would, IMO, be an error to place the text in an article dealing with "Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" but not with the other points I've mentioned. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Pinging Sj and Nishidani to make sure they see this sub-thread. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • B or D: I don't see the point in merging to the current version of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but I can see merging to List of Wikipedia controversies as somewhat suggested above. Personally, I feel it is better for the text to be reformatted rather than an entire article. If preferred, a sentence could be added to Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to mention the controversy briefly. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The RfC is badly formatted, since D doesn't explicitly state the option discussed, It is placed last, as an indeterminate thing and looks like privileging the B/C options that are tantamount to eliding any reference to the issue here .We all agree A doesn't address the problem, so that isn't a serious option.
This is simply an issue of taking what has become a major issue recently, particularly for the ADL, and noting it in a paragraph on this page. All would agree what we have is WP:Undue in the sense of being overlong. The whole text as it stands should be therefore shifted to a sister article, with a main link, or put on wikipedia controversies or whatever while a précis of the dispute should remain on this ADL mainpage where it now stands. Three or four sentences at most. Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
"The whole text as it stands should be therefore shifted to a sister article, with a main link, or put on wikipedia controversies or whatever while a précis of the dispute should remain on this ADL mainpage where it now stands." So B or D, IOW Chetsford (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
A KHarbaugh (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
A or C - is there enough material to warrant spinning off? Perhaps in the heat of the moment, especially among wikipedians, we may be biased to see any news-coverage of Wikipedia as far more significant than it may be. However, MSM coverage lasted maybe one day before moving on.
I suspect that this will die down entirely within a month, if it hasn't died down already. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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.

Has this been noted?

Tom Perkins Internal memo reveals Anti-Defamation League surveillance of leftwing activist The Guardian 8 July 2024 Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It mentions our wikipedia discussions by the way. Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I’d say so, yes Dronebogus (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I thought it said “is this notable” for some reason. I don’t know if it’s noted yet but it’s probably notable. Dronebogus (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems noteworthy to me, maybe a sentence, two at most. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Covering changes to characterization over time

separating from the previous section, as it's about a different aspect of the article – SJ +

Just because an organization was founded for a certain purpose, doesn't mean that it keeps the same focus over time. I think the sourcing shows that it is increasingly operating as a pro-israel advocacy group. I think it's reasonable for the article to reflect the current state of affairs while mentioning its history. (t · c) buidhe 18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
See U.S. antisemitic incidents hit record high in 2022, ADL report says, Reuters, March 23, 2023.
"In January, a gunman took three congregants and a rabbi hostage for more than 10 hours at a Texas synagogue. Four months later, a Hasidic Jewish school bus driver was shot with a BB gun in New York City. In September, a congregant was punched leaving a Portland, Oregon, synagogue."
"The number of incidents involving organized white supremacist propaganda activity doubled, incidents at K-12 schools increased by 49% and by two-fifths on college campuses in 2022, the organization found."
"Attacks on Orthodox Jews rose by 69%, while bomb threats against Jewish institutions increased by eight to 91."
"According to an ADL report in January, a fifth of Americans now believe in six or more antisemitic tropes, almost twice as many as in 2019. The survey asked respondents to rate the truthfulness of 14 statements describing different traditional anti-Jewish tropes including "Jews have too much power" in the business world and on Wall Street."
Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
What is your point? Did you mean that because the ADL was cited by other reliable sources on compiling data of antisemitic incidents, its pro-Israeli advocacy property is irrelevant"? Apologize in advance if it feels like I am putting words in your mouth. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The message I addressed seemed to mischaracterize how ADL's interests are proportioned. Being pro-Israel doesn't diminish it's main interest of being against anti-semitism, which I think was shown by the report. See also, Ohio State faces Anti-Defamation League complaint alleging 'failure' to address antisemitism, The Columbus Dispatch, April 8, 2024.
"The complaint cites a number of incidents involving Ohio State students including:
  • In November, a group of five Jewish student were attacked by two individuals while walking off-campus. One of the students wearing a necklace with a Hebrew letter was called a slur and two students were punched in the face, which broke one's nose and one's jaw.
  • On Dec. 9, a Jewish student wearing a sweatshirt with the words “Am Yisrael Chai” (which translates "the people of Israel live") in the shape of a Jewish star was confronted by another student who used a profanity to tell him to take off the shirt.
  • On Jan. 26, a Jewish student living in off-campus housing found that their mezuzah (a symbol of Jewish identity) had been torn from their doorpost and thrown on the ground.
  • On Feb. 2, Jewish students eating Shabbat dinner at the campus Hillel were interrupted when other students began banging on the windows and shouting “Free Palestine.”
  • On Feb. 23, a Jewish student’s dorm room door was vandalized with graffiti reading “Free Palestine.”
  • On Feb. 15, Jewish students gathering signatures on a petition against antisemitism at the Ohio Union were confronted by a man saying he would not sign because he wants to “kill Jews.” The next day, an individual stole an Israeli flag from the Ohio Union after a multicultural event there, flashed a “white power” sign and harassed Jewish students."
Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
We have secondary RS critical of the ADL's confusion of protests on behalf of Palestine, and antisemitism. Read them. (By the way, things similar to all of those incidents, occur, not dispersed over two months, every day in the West Bank, and the targets are Palestinian. These events are all covered in Israeli newspapers, but never attract the ADL's attention, despite its boast about being the world's largest NGO for tracking and denouncing discriminatory practices).Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding navel-gazing

It was suggested above by Newimpartial that the recent versions of this article did not demonstrate navel-gazing, however this is a classic of the genre. We can debate whether the level of self-reference is appropriate here, but I just removed three specific examples (reverted again by Newimpartial w/o discussion):

  • Self-ref in the lede. The ADL's reliability has been acclaimed and denounced by many notable arbiters of reliability than Wikipedia over the years. Yet Wikipedia is the only example of reliability-assessment mentioned in the lede.
  • Extended details about the ADL's open letter being addressed to the WMF, and getting a response pointing out that that Foundation is not involved with editorial decisions on the projects. This is inside baseball, not particularly notable or widely reported, and of interest primarily to Wikipedians. Not deserving of its own paragraph that says nothing substantive about the ADL or its work.
  • Excessive sub-sectioning for the section about a Wikipedia controversy, making the article less readable. The ADL's evaluation on WP:RSP changed from green to a mix of green, yellow, and red. This happens to sources; the process isn't overly notable, nor was the response. A blow-by-blow of the timeline of evaluation and various responses adds nothing to the history of the ADL, and is again only of interest to people who follow Wikipedia processes.

It is easy for articles about topics in the news to become coat-racks for trivia that get mentioned in reliable sources, or even questionable sources like a The Hill web series. We should take extra care not to let that happen with topics involving WP itself. – SJ + 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

+1. The ADL is a 110 year old advocacy org, with a storied history in fighting anti-semitism. It's recent pro-Israel advocacy is more contemporary politics, and defeats the purpose of us being an encyclopedic source if we highlight it in the first sentence.
Currently, this wikipedia portion makes up slightly more than 10% of the article by word count. That is ludicrous WP:RECENTISM for a news story that lasted maybe 4 days (are there any sources that have occurred after July 1st? Will there be any?). We should be able to clean up this article, and if folks want to make another article with all this info, just look at the history to rebuild if they need to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This does seem a tension b/t people editing to make WP a better source for contemporary takes, despite guidelines to the contrary, and those editing to make it a better encyclopedic reference. If Wikinews had been more successful, I could imagine newsworthy subjects having a sidebar summarizing the latest news (w/ balanced overview of takes from the past year) w/o trying to shoehorn those into the encyclopedic summary (w/ balanced overview of historical perspectives). And we could have a style guide for the time-scale on which to merge summaries of one more deeply into the other. – SJ + 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we take Wikipedia as it is sometimes and accept whatever it becomes.
Just, this instance seems especially egregious in terms of how little this incident is in the grand scheme of the ADL's history and how inflated it is on this page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus on this page that references to Wikipedia's reassessmet of the ADL's reliability in the context of the Israel-Paleatine conflict is excessive and counts as "navel gazing". That could be true, but only if the coverage of this issue in the article exceeds its representation in recent, reliable sources, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
What I have seen is that coverage of this issue in Israel-based sources has been especially prominent over the last month, though sources from many other national news markets have covered the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia is a notable website, and if various reliable sources think our judgement on ADL's reliability is of importance, in it goes. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
A mention may be proportionate. This section is about disproportionate coverage, specifically inclusion in the lede, and 5 sections of detail about our assessment process. This was a media cycle, which ended two weeks ago. – SJ + 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the reference to Wikipedia's opinion evaluation in the lead feels too self-important and undue. I tried removing it, but @Sameboat: reverted me without having the decency of providing an edit summary to explain themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus to remove that from the lede. You can be bold about that, but unless there is a clear consensus I don't think there is enough support to remove that. Also writing an edit summary is not mandatory, the information page of edit summary, not a policy or guideline, only suggests editor should write an edit summary. Certainly leaving it blank (when there is already a machine-gen revert message) has nothing to do with "decency". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Count me as one more editor who does not think that Wikipedia should be in the lead. Zerotalk 07:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Definitely should not be in the lead, massive WP:Undue, a blip in a very long institutional history.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS to gain consensus is on those who wish to include disputed content. Absent a consensus for inclusion it should be removed Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree, and also agree that it should not be included. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that there appears to be a consensus in this discussion that the mention in the lede specifically is undue, I will remove it in a few hours once my 24 hr revert rule is up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I've now gone ahead and removed it Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Stylistic point re last para of lead

The phrasing "ADL has been criticized [...] that [...]" seems odd to me. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Amend it then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I've expanded the last paragraph from Britannica, which I think incidentally altered this wording in the process. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Close-paraphrasing a tertiary source does not help matters. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Well at least you admit it's sourced to a tertiary source and not POV now – here's to progress! Re: paraphrasing, I do not believe it is close – I re-scripted quite intently – but if anyone can still point to any specific, overly close remnants, I will happily make amends. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
at least you admit Please don't put words in my mouth. Sourcing and POV phraseology are two completely separate and distinct issues. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I condensed two sentences that used Britannica language into one sentence in some edits to the paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. And that, everybody, is how editing on Wikipedia is supposed to work. Incremental improvement, not idiotic reversion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Though, btw, they're not just "pro-Palestinian criticisms" – obviously both human rights groups and anti-war causes are also prominent sources – you can be pro-human rights and pro-peace without being pro-Palestinian. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That is true. I replaced "pro-Palestinian" with "some" in the sentence to try to address your question immediately, though there may be better alternatives. Llll5032 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead guidelines

People seem thoroughly confused about how leads are meant to work. The first sentence, per MOS:FIRST, succintly lays out the topic. The first paragraph, per MOS:OPEN, lays out everything notable about the topic. The rest of the lead then expounds upon the above by summarizing the contents of the page. Duplication between the first paragraph and other parts of the lead isn't a flaw, it's a feature. For example, the first paragraph will often note when an institution was founded. The second paragraph then might mention the date in the context of explaining the establishment of an institution. Naturally there is overlap between summarizing the page in the lead and specifically naming a topic's most notable features in the very first sentence and paragraph. The first paragraph is a microcosm of the lead, which is in turn a microcosm of the page. The idea that something can't be mentioned in a one-liner in the first paragraph and then expanded on later in the lead as it proceeds in summary style is just a made-up argument that bears no resemblance to our guidelines or how leads actually work. Despite being anti-guideline, I see that this flawed logic has proven persuasive, as Self, perhaps feeling the mental exhaustion of spending too much time already on the prior inane thread has now moved the one-line summary to the fourth paragraph again. However, again, that's really not how this works. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It just seems to me we're headed for an RFC on the point so rather than getting tangled up in superfluous objections to other matters, simpler to put it there, the question can be asked just the same. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion not relevant to content of article
Please don't use this talk page to set forth "lead guidelines." Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It's only necessary because there appears to be some gross miscomprehension or ignorance at work on this talk page that is essentially preventing the discussion of a content dispute based on actual policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Condescending to other editors is uncivil. Please desist. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Pointing out guidelines to editors that appear oblivious to them is not uncivil; it is a necessary task/duty. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Other editors may not agree with your view of things. They may not be "ignorant" but may simply feel differently. Therefore I think that to avoid a WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:OWN situation, it would be preferable for you to not initiate sections of this kind on article talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Editors not absorbing and following the guidelines is not them "not agreeing"; it is them wasting the time of everyone else involved in this project. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
And this thread isn't generic; it's related to a content dispute on this page. If you can't make the connection, that's on you, but please don't misrepresent the issue as unrelated to the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, this section is related to Talk:Anti-Defamation League#Pro-Israel advocacy in lead, in which there was clear confusion over how leads should be composed and structured. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League/Archive_10&oldid=1249761115"