Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 11

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

Pro-Israel advocacy in lead

I support the Dag21902190 version of the lead. It includes the mention of Israel advocacy (which should indeed be in lead) and has the same content, but is ordered more logically and without skewing to make pro-Israel the main story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. Dag21902190 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I would probably put it in the first paragraph of the lead somehow.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree that "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy" should not be in the lead paragraph. It is excessive emphasis and skews the NPOV of the article for that reason. Also I am not sure it is accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    ADL's pro-Israel advocacy should definitely be in the lead as it underlies a major part of ADL's focus and actions. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    Dag21902190's version makes that point and uses that very language without putting it at the very beginning, which is excessive weight.
    I have my doubts about the sourcing notwithstanding placement. There are three footnotes for that sentence. Two are offiline. Of the two offline sources, one (Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings. Sage. p. 58) seems incorrect. Going to p. 58 via Google Books, I see no description of the ADL as pro-Israel. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see the subject addressed at all concerning the ADL in that book, and a word search of "Israel" confirms that. The apparent misuse of that source does not give me high confidence in the use of the other offline source, which is available only in sniippet view on Google Books. That leaves an online footnote for the Britannica reference, which does substantiate it. But I think we need a greater weight of sourcing considering the sensitivity of the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I ran into the same problem with Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings. Sage. p. 58, where it was not relevant to the text. Also, note that the Britannica article on the ADL does not mention ADL's support for Israel in its lead, except to say that ADL has an office in Israel. Britannica mentions ADL support for Israel in the last paragraph of the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    In the above I mentioned the first and third refs. I later looked into the second ref too (Hendricks 2019), which is a two page article on the ADL, and it did not mention Israel. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    Misuse of sources, attributing statements to sources that they did not make, is a serious matter if done in bad faith. I don't know which editor did so, I assume it was an unintentional error, but it needs not to be repeated or it will have to go before WP:AE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It is obvious that Israel advocacy should be in the lead. Not only is the ADL well known for that, it has openly proclaimed Israel advocacy to be part of its mission for many decades. See here, here, here and here, for example. Look at this ADL summary of 65 years of advocacy. Let's not pretend that ADL doesn't do what everyone knows they do and ADL proudly declares. Zerotalk 06:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There is not a shadow of a doubt that this has become one of its prime functions. Its advocacy is not restricted to defending Israel (perfectly normal), but extends to defending its occupational policies and the settler constituency in the West Bank, which is not advocacy for Israel but advocacy for occupying another country. When Obama called for a freeze on settlements, the ADL joined right-wing Israeli lobbying groups in condemning his proposal:'“Mr.President, the problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection’ (Theodore Sasson, The New American Zionism, New York University Press 2015 ISBN 978-1-479-80611-9 p.47), a headline banner-waving sentence so pointedly phrased that it appeared to also mean that the problem with settlements is that Palestinians object to them. This is so glaringly obvious, we shouldn't even be discussing it.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    The question is whether its "Israel advocacy" has achieved such a primacy that this >100-year-old organization has devolved into that, rising above all else, so that it belongs not just in the lead but right up at the very top of the article. It is at the very least recentism but I think it is more an NPOV issue and a product of the focus on this article caused by the ADL's complaints about Wikipedia. It's almost as if we are sticking a finger in the eye of an organization that has badmouthed Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think that Israel advocacy is one of the ADL's core functions, and that this is not only recently. They were on the "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" wagon already decades ago. Note that the ADL's timeline of itself mentions Israel in every decade that Israel has existed. This is not a side-show but clearly central. Unfortunately, it is probably impossible to get a breakdown of how the ADL spends its $100 million. Zerotalk 14:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Coretheapple The ADL had no problems with declaring it was an israeli advocacy group and with writing and promoting material to that end. What appears to have happened is that it erased all trace of this record from its website some time ago. See Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism, Times Books/Henry Holt and Company ISBN 978-1-250-02673-6 2013, which mentions their publishing an 89 page “Guide for Activists” once available at [2]. Se also [3]. These links functioned and are cited in several secondary sources of quality, and now do not function.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
They removed a document on pro-Israel advocacy? That indicates that they are moving away from such activities, not moving toward them. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I searched the Wikipedia Library bundle for "ADL" with "pro-Israel" and the first search result was an article in Commentary from 2022 by Seth Mandel arguing that the ADL has been in the forefront of alleging that right-leaning speech is "misinformation." I understand that it has come under attack for that. We could say that with greater or even more justification in the lead paragraph, though I certainly would oppose doing so as a POV issue just as I oppose the current language re pro-Israel at the very beginning of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Guardian Jan 2024) Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics
"ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations"
"Critics...say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel."
(The nation 2024) The Anti-Defamation League: Israel’s Attack Dog in the US
I don't see how one can describe the org as anything but pro Israel. it's almost a defining characteristic atm. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Coretheapple.Strawman. Removal means 'moving away from advocacy activity'? The sentence is shorn of logic. Because I did not say the ADL was moving towards Israeli advocacy. I stated, as Zero documented, that the ADL has a very long history of lobbying for Israel. John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Penguin Books 2007 passim, but at p.113, identifies it as one of the four core lobby groups 'whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies,.' Anyone is entitled to ignore the evidence, but there is no evidence that the ADL has ceased its Israel advocacy (and again, I insist, all nations lobby for their interests (only people tend to get nervous when this practice is mentioned re Israel)). If I have to give an opinion,as you do, why they took off those links showing their activism, a decade ago, then I would suggest that 'advocacy' for another country sits poorly, when you can do it by other means, like vigorously lobbying to get legislatures to enshrine in law limits to free speech re Israel, a project which it has dedicated strong funding for for the last several years. As the Guardian puts it, 'The spending positions the ADL as the largest pro-Israel lobbying force on domestic issues.' But, of course, this is just evidence, and really shouldn't impact our opinions here.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we need more neutral sources for that characterization than aggressively anti-Israel sources such as you just cited. Measheimer et al? Please. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
we is an example of the plural of majesty, I guess. If someone does not consider that the joint work of the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School is RS because they consider it an 'aggressively anti-Israel' source, then it is a fair intimation either that (a) they probably haven't read the book (b) and if they have, all they found browsing the 355 pages and the 1398 footnotes, all with multiple sourcing and extending each to several lines over 106 pages (pp.357-463), is that the evidence is unanswerable, and the only response therefore is to dismiss the source as 'aggressively anti-Israel', a political judgment, not a rational assessment of the evidence. Everybody here is entitled to their opinion, but unless the comments show familiarity with RS, those opinions are negligible.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You're responding to something I didn't say. Getting back to what I actually said, this is not rocket science. Mearsheimer, Walt and The Guardian are unabashedly anti-Israel and cannot be considered unbiased sources in this subject area. Also it is important to note that there are two issues here. Sourcing and placement. What's your justification for placement at the very top of the article? Not just in the lead section but lead paragraph? That is the primary issue here as I understand it. What is the justification for that? Do you have one? Do you oppose placement in the first paragraph? Perhaps we agree on that point. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Personal opinions on what is unabashedly anti-Israel are not arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Thats absurd, The Israel Lobby is a work by two noted academics who are undoubtedly experts. Any editors dislike of their scholarly work on the basis of being aggressively anti-Israel is meritless and does not need to be countered with anything other than WP:RS ranks academic works higher than random Wikipedia editor opinions. nableezy - 23:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a highly controversial source. We should use more neutral and widely accepted ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Such as? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that in the discussion so far, the ADL has been identified as supporting Israel. I think the question remains as to whether there are sufficient reliable sources that say that the ADL's work in supporting Israel is as substantial as its work against antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination. Otherwise, I don't think it belongs alongside antisemitism, etc., at the top of the lead, but possibly lower down in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Nope. That doesn't work. The evidence above identifies 'support/advocacy for Israel' as characteristic of the ADL, something it shares with AIPAC, WINEP and CUFI. I.e. the foremost critical study of pro-Israeli advocacy states that this is central to ADL's mission. Numerous sources state its regular omission of significant studies on the systematic brutalization of Palestinians, something that technically is within its remit. The oldest example of deliberate distortion I can think of goes way back.
It cited selectively a Fatah manifesto as proof that that organization attacked Jews of all countries and thereby brand it as intrinsically antisemitic. Note the way the following passage (I've struck out what they omitted, which changes the meaning substantively) was groomed to distort its plain meaning beyond recognition.

Jews contributed men, money and influence to make Israel a reality and to perpetuate the crimes committed against the Palestinians. The people of the Book, the men of light, the victims of Russian pogroms, of Nazi genocide, of Dachau and other Polish concentration camps shut their eyes and ears in Palestine and changed roles from oppressed to oppressor. This is the Jewish dilemma of modern times.’Sean Malloy, Doug Lorimer, The Palestinian Struggle, Zionism and Anti-Semitism Resistance Books 2002 ISBN 978-1-876-64637-0 pp.33-34, p.34.

It is that loud silence, apart from generalities of vague sympathy, which underlines its advocacy which, in focusing on defending Israel, ignores what its critics have documented about the situation under Israel's military occupation of another people. They leave that to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem. If protesters cite the last three, (which basically deal with the occupied territories) the standard ADL whine is to argue that such reports are 'weaponised' and are untrue because

'within Israel there are legal and political safeguards ensuring equal treatment to Arab citizens. Indeed, Arab citizens serve as judges, ambassadors, legislators, journalists, professors, artists and play prominent roles in all aspects of Israeli society.'

Absolutely true. But it shifts the goalposts by answering the criticisms about Israel's separation policy in the Palestinian territories by replying that within Israel there is no discrimination, which is wildly beyond the point.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
But none of that gets to the point as to whether the ADL's pro-Israel stance should be in the lead paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Really? The ADL is identified as one of the four core pro-Israel advocacies lobbies in the US, but that is not leadworthy. That doesn't make sense. If it has heavily invested in pro-Israel advocacy then that is one of its defining characteristics.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
That's from Walt and Mearsheimer, who are openly biased against Israel, to say the least. Putting the ADL's "pro-Israel advocacy" in the lead paragraph on the word of those two persons? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Benny Morris said of the work you cite as follows: : "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity." This is in the link I cited just above. No I think we need higher quality sourcing than those two persons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Benny Morris of the Arabs should have been completely expelled from their homeland in 1948, and nuke Iran now fame? Have you, rather than looking at the the cherrypicked list of people, almost none with Mearsheimer and Walt's scholarly standing (and ignoring the positive evaluation made by the Financial Times:'The editorial praised the paper, remarking that "They argue powerfully that extraordinarily effective lobbying in Washington has led to a political consensus that American and Israeli interests are inseparable and identical.') ever read the book in question? Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Like most books, it has garnered positive and negative reaction. However, in evaluating its use as a source in this context I think we have to carefully consider the widespread, serious and scholarly criticism, which is more than just people on Amazon complaining that they didn't like it. If we justify the use of "pro-Israel advocacy" in the lead paragraph on the basis of openly biased sources, it justifies the subject's complaints about how it has been treated in the project. Frankly I'm surprised the anti-Israel bias of this book and its authors is even being seriously disputed, or disputed at all for that matter. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
If it is a defining characteristic, which it would seem to be, then yes, it should be. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There are multiple defining characteristics, and doing so on the basis of two openly anti-Israel commentators, Walt and Mersheimer, doesn't pass the laugh test. This is a 111-year old organization that was founded for the purpose of fighting antisemitism. What is being termed (in Wikipedia's voice no less) as "pro-Israel advocacy" appears to be its effort to fight antisemitism by anti-Israel advocates. We can argue endlessly here about whether they are righteous in doing so or not, but that is what they are doing as best as I can ascertain. We can say with equal validity in that same space that the ADL has advocated against "misinformation: in a manner that has drawn criticism. The flaw with doing that, as here, is recentism and excessive emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I just provided two other sources besides that and can supply more although I think this actually so obvious it shouldn't really need it, this is a major part of the reason why this org was adjudged as generally unreliable for the AI/IP conflict. It's not just bias, it's bias that affects reliability so a significant matter worthy of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Please desist from repeating ad nauseam your personal view'two openly anti-Israel commentators, Walt and Mersheimer.' You have no evidence for this, because there is no evidence. it is a smear clichés circulated by commentators of a certain political persuasion. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh heavens it is not my "personal view" for indeed my view of the book is of no relevancy whatsoever. It is the view of a substantial number of informed critics and scholars, as carefully delineated in the "Criticism" section of the article on the book. It's all there. This is a controversial book and in my opinion it is sufficiently tainted so as to make it simply inadequate to utilize for the purposes proffered. The fact that it has been a subject of substantial controversy, the fact that this book has been subjected to notable and sustained criticism, is totally undeniable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably means it hit the mark. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes but whether we believe it hit the mark or did not is not really relevant, is it? It just means that the book's assertions and conclusions are seriously disputed. We can do better. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it means that "we" need to find sources asserting the opposite or something different. We don't discard RS unless the bias is so severe as to affect reliability, not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
That's correct, but I think this book fails WP:QUESTIONABLE. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy to discuss that at RSN, anytime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes that is the place for such discussions and I think that is a good idea. It certainly would be interesting if Mearsheimer, Walt and/or their book are ultimately found to be more reliable than the ADL. That is certainly a possible outcome. I know many editors would cheer, though the outcome from the standpoint of the project's reputation would be another matter. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bob K31416, we encounter a logical problem in seeking to answer that question, as the ADL has been working hard to persuade people that opposing Israel's occupation of the Palestinian people and land is antisemitic. By doing so, the ADL is supporting the occupation and has its thumb on the scale measuring the amount of antisemitism. This makes it difficult to assess how substantial is ADL's work in support of the occupation as compared to its work in tracking and combatting antisemitism. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
PS: I'm not going to play along with the game of describing opposition to the occupation as "anti-Israel" and support for the occupation as "pro-Israel". Read this article in the Jerusalem Post, which quotes 17 former high-ranking Israeli security officials as saying that Netanyahu is an "existential threat to the State of Israel". So, is opposing Netanyahu's actions "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel"? Quite a conundrum! Misha Wolf (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It would be up to the reliable sources to determine what proportion of the ADL's work is support for Israel and what proportion is work against antisemitism, bigotry, and discrimination. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a bit of a red herring, it's whether the support for Israel is a defining feature and I think it is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
How is that a red herring? I'm sure you agree that it has other defining features dating back to its founding in 1913. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course, but a defining feature needn't take up some arbitrary % of activity. It is just a question if sources agree that it is a notable feature. In the alternative, that there are a sufficiency of sources saying that its principal attributes are something else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes it depends upon how reliable sources rank-order the ADL's activity. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

First two sentences from two encyclopedia articles on the ADL.
"Anti-Defamation League, advocacy organization established in Chicago in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination. Its activities include assessing hate crimes and anti-Semitism in various countries, assisting law-enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting extremists, providing antibias and diversity training, and publishing Holocaust education curricula." "Anti-Defamation League". Britannica. 2024-07-24. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
"The mission of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is to fight anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jewish people) as well as all forms of bigotry. The organization seeks to defend democratic ideals while protecting civil rights for all people through information, education, legislation, and advocacy." Hendricks, Nancy (2019). "Anti-Defamation League". In Ainsworth, Scott H.; Harward, Brian M. (eds.). Political Groups, Parties, and Organizations That Shaped America: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. Vol. 1. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781440851964.
Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point. The tertiary references make the rank-order plain. This is a proper use of tertiary references per WP:RS. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Britannica is not a great cite and the other predates many of the issues with ADL. But we are not here to rerun the RSN discussion, where sources were provided clearly showing the pro Israeli nature of the beast and that should be an end of it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concluding

There were numerous RS provided above showing that one of ADL's prime functions is to serve as a pro-Israel group, so what is the reasoning for this label to be moved to the last lede paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I put it back, obvious characteristic of the org, per recent RSN discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe better to leave controversies to last lede paragraphs and only pro-Israel label in opening one? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Idk, seems we should describe the org in the lead para, if someone else wants to cut something out, they can. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Reverted already. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
You expanded the lead paragraph to incorporate the final paragraph of the lead, including the anonymous staff dissent. Come on. The pro-Israel advocacy was already in the lead section, but at an appropriate place in the lead. There is no basis for putting it at the very top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure there is, it is a pro Israel org (with a very pro Israel boss) and that should be incorporated in para 1. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Selfstuder, it ias already in the lead. Your edit not only made it effectively an adjunct to the Zionist Organization of America or AIPAC, but also put the anonymous staff dissent front and center. That was grossly inappropriate. In fact it is questionable whether the anonymous staff dissent belongs in the lead at all. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Well split it up then instead of just reverting it out altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't get the thirst to put this is in the very first paragraph and to magnify beyond all reason some anonymous staff bickering. It's not as if it's not already in the lead. It is. It's a kind of hyperfocus and it is inappropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We need to tamp down the enthusiasm that some of us have to showcase the ADL as a pro-Israel organization. Readers get the point. It is in the lead section. But this is a 111-year-old organization with a long history that largely is non-Israel-related. Some of the edits make it seem as if it was created five years ago and lobbies for military aid on Capitol Hill. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yea, the last few years, they ruined the whole thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
To be very frank, I find this article and this whole subject matter annoying for several reasons. One is that if you look at the top of this page, one sees that the ADL has engaged in extensive COI and paid editing in the past. They don't anymore. Now they write letters of complaint to the WMF, which is absurd, when they could just come here, to this page and to other pages, and speak on their own behalf if they so desire. I was thinking of writing a Signpost article on that peculiarity but I don't have the time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This is confusing the history of the organisation with the organisation as it is today. History is paragraph two of the lead. Paragraph one is what it is today with a one-sentence origin story. Wikipedia isn't recentism, but it also isn't permanent nostalgia. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you really trying to claim that this advocacy isn't leading information here? Really?! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
See above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it, they are advocating against antisemitism that they feel is disguised as anti-Israel conduct. While we have them as a pro-Israel organization and that is supported by the sourcing. what I see here is an effort to lump them in with outright lobbying organizations such as the ZOA or AIPAC, which have a clear mandate to advocate for Israel in all its senses (military aid etc etc). Putting it in the lead section is fine. It is there already, remember? it's working against the so-called "new antisemitism," which is Israel-centered. But the edits being performed here twist reality such as to make the ADL into just a plain vanilla pro-Israel operation when that is just not supported by the sourcing such as to justify putting it into the very first paragraph. Now things have gotten so ridiculous that staff dissent is being put in the first paragraph. Anonymous staff dissent. Really now. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
They clearly go well beyond what you say here. That's one of three things very obviously detailed in the guardian piece, among many others. Or take e.g. this more recent posting – yes opinion, but from culture critic Mark Dery. You don't really have to look far. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually that essay makes my point. More generally, this discussion in general has the flavor of a discussion as to whether to put ADL's Israel stuff in the lead, when it is there already and that point has been conceded. People keep saying "gosh the ADL is pro-Israel" almost as if it's not mentioned prominently. Placing the Israel text in the lead but not in the lead paragraph is not "nostalgia" but rather a balanced and fair approach. We need to be fair even to organizations that don't like us. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The current first paragraph says what the organisation was founded as, but not what it actually is. That's just a failure to summarise. The first paragraph is a microcosm of the whole lead, which is a microcosm of the whole page. It's not first paragraph = nostalgia, with a dusting of awkward home truths at the end of the lead. Today, the ADL is a notably opinionated advocacy group that still does some run of the mill civil rights work, but also, fairly relentlessly, engages in a lot of less than stellar and pretty ill-conceived lobbying work on the matter of the topic of Israel–Palestine, even when it is well outside of the remit of anything civil rights related. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Update as of May: its lobbying work is actually ramping up dramatically, with its spending on such activities increasing 16-fold from 2020 to now. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
So now your edit has twice in the lead section that the ADL has been criticized for pro-Israel activity. Gee, don't you think that's a bit overkill? It has been criticzed for everything it does, by the left and right. Introducing that repetition is totally POV and I request that you self-revert to cure that.. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Removed the line "In recent decades, it has also become known for and received criticism for its pro-Israel advocacy" because as Coretheapple has stated, it is not only redundant, but clearly POV, and the statement "in recent decades" has an original research statement vibe to it as well. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
ADL has been a pro-Israel advocacy group since at least the 1960s, so we do not need in recent decades. We should just describe it as a pro-Israel group in the opening paragraph, as have RS described it. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The first source cited already in the lead is from 2004, so "recent decades" is the sourced bare minimum. It can certainly be left more open-ended though. And for the nth time, no, it is not redundant for the first paragraph to say everything it needs to about the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds we have general agreement on the inclusion of pro-Israel group in the opening paragraph per RS-based arguments and WP guideline, namely that the WP:Opening sentence should establish notability. Being a pro-Israel is clearly a notability for the ADL. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
We most certainly do not have a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph, Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure we do and I have edited to reflect that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
There is consensus to include a mention of the pro-Israel stance in the lead section, but no consensus for the first paragraph. To compound matters, the way the last paragraph is worded is POV, as it emphasizes the criticism of the pro-Israel stance over the stance itself, framing the subject entirely as criticism and that golly even their staff opposes. That was on the basis of a teleconference in which dissent was expressed, but it gives the impression that the entire staff has risen up in righteous fury. No, we don't get together on talk pages and decide that WP:NPOV doesn't matter. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Alter/delete the current last para if you wish, I wouldn't object provided that the relevant material remains in the body. And if there is no consensus for the current first paragraph, which seems not to be the case afaics, but if so, then there is equally no consensus for the fourth para, where y'all keep putting it.
At any rate your argument currently is that the sentence "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy." belongs in (a possibly to be amended) para 4 rather than as now in para 1. Is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the final paragraph is the place for that, and no I cannot alter the last paragraph due to 1RR. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, one thing at a time, would editors please indicate their preference for the sentence ""ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy."

Should it be in para 1 (as now) or para 4? In the event we cannot manage an informal consensus, we can move to a formal RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually the current situation is the first AND the final paragraph. The configuration of the lead was never first paragraph only. The repetition is part of what makes the lead section non-neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion has been about pro Israel advocacy, which is the bit I am inquiring about. I am not myself concerned about para 4, which anyone can amend or not as they see fit, only whether the given sentence is at para 1 or at para 4 (whatever para 4 might look like). Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Moved the material back to para 4 in order to avoid duplication, question still the same though, should that sentence be in para 4 or para 1. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and series of edits here are robustly and undisguisedly POV. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
On my browser, six of the 20 lines of the lead are an overly POV excoriation of the ADL's stance on Israel (e.g. "counter messaging critical of the illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories"). Are we ready to get serious about addressing the lead? Because that kind of text is a nonstarter. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
What you're labelling POV is basically straight from Britannica, so good luck with that tack. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
No, one-third of the Britannica article is not devoted to roasting the ADL over a slow fire for its stance on Israel, but one-third of the lead of this article does just that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Then perhaps start that thread on what the weighting actually should be so that we can have a mature and frank discussion on it, instead of us all just sitting on this merry-go-round of pointless back and forth. To the immediate point above, Britannica is useful at times, but it is also laggardly (no idea how often it is seriously updated) and often a poor indicator of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it cutting it down to a couple of sentences is sufficient weight. Neutral sentences. Suggest starting from scratch in that endeavor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
However, putting aside the undue emphasis issue, you are correct that there is a close paraphrase of the Briannica language, which is problematic for several reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Either point to specific close paraphrasing or don't – preferably respond below in the now not bloated thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The close paraphrasing has been fixed. Good! Now let's trim it back, Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The recently-added apologia to the fourth lede paragraph is unsourced, editorial and original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The first 2 sentences of lead para 4

The first 2 sentences of lead para 4 start with "ADL is also known for ..." and "The ADL also promotes ...", which strikes me as inelegant. Would it be OK to change the start of the 2nd sentence to "It promotes"? Alternatively, could we make this into a single sentence, by removing the full stop terminating the first sentence and replacing "The ADL also promotes ..." with "and promotes ..."?

I'm being very cautious here as it seems that this para generates strong emotions. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The words "criticism of the Israeli government with" in the fourth paragraph

@Llll5032, a few hours ago, I inserted the words "criticism of the Israeli government with" between the words "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and" and "antisemitism.", resulting in "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism." You removed those words, stating in the edit summary "not clearly supported by the cited sources; a clear refquote from a strong RS would be helpful".

Firstly, the first two cited sources ([18] and [19]) strongly support the words I had added.

Secondly, the lead of the article New antisemitism says: "Critics of the concept argue that it is used in practice to weaponize antisemitism in order to silence political debate and freedom of speech regarding the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, by conflating political anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with racism [...]".

In the same article, the section discussing the book The New anti-Semitism, by Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein of the ADL, includes the following:

Allan Brownfeld writes that Forster and Epstein's new definition of antisemitism trivialized the concept by turning it into "a form of political blackmail" and "a weapon with which to silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East [...]

Misha Wolf (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, Weaponization of antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032: has strong opinions on that subject, that might explain their ott removals. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Llll5032, I see that section "New antisemitism concept" of this article, also discusses Forster and Epstein's book and includes the following:

Reviewing Forster and Epstein's work in 1974 for the neoconservative magazine Commentary, Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, agreed that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in America in the form of opposition to the supposed collective rights of the Jewish people, but Raab criticized Forster and Epstein for "stretch[ing] the word in practice to mean anti-Israel bias in general".

In the face of these pieces of evidence, do you stand by your edit? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Misha Wolf. The Guardian source you mentioned (18) says the IHRA "defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic", so phrasing closer to that quotation could be supported by RS. But the ADL's opposition to some criticisms of Israel is already mentioned elsewhere in the paragraph, and the linking of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is still in the sentence, so perhaps the additional repetition would be unnecessary? Llll5032 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Llll5032, I consider it important that it be made clear that the concept of new antisemitism defines (at least some) criticism of Israel as antisemitic. The current wording is highly misleading as it describes the equation:
new antisemitism = antisemitism + anti-Zionism
whereas the following is true:
new antisemitism = antisemitism + (anti-Zionism and/or some criticism of Israel)
OTOH, I accept that adding words such as "and some criticism of Israel" to that sentence would make the paragraph even more bloated than it is already.
IMO, the best solution would be to add those words but to restructure the paragraph to avoid any duplication.
I don't (at least currently) feel up to such a re-write but hope that someone else does. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Misha Wolf. Perhaps editors will have ideas.
Also, if a RS of high quality specifies what criticisms of Israel the ADL does and does not consider antisemitic, or notes any criticisms the ADL has made of Israelis, these would be a welcome addition to the article, at least to the body. Llll5032 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I have drafted a replacement 4th para, which I shall now insert. It includes the words I originally added, but does so in a way which reduces the para's overall word count by one. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Misha Wolf: The criticism has been levelled by almost everyone and not just some of ADL's staff. I think we are better off trimming the previous sentence poorly sourced to Britannica: "Its efforts to counter some criticisms of Israel and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have brought it into conflict with pro-Palestinian groups and peace activists." Makeandtoss (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Makeandtoss, I've tweaked the para again. Is that better? Misha Wolf (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Misha Wolf: Much better indeed, thanks.
"a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism" is summarizable as "a new antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism,"? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss, doing that would be a very serious error. Consider the following:
What is criticism of the Israeli government? It is any statement of the form "I/we criticise the Israeli government for X", where "X" is some specific action or inaction. Obviously, the words "I/we criticise the Israeli government for X" can be replaced by other words with a similar meaning, such as "The Israeli government is wrong to be doing X" and so on. Often the word "government" is omitted, especially where the criticism relates to actions spanning multiple Israeli governments.
What is anti-Zionism? I can think of three cases:
  • A person waves a sign, or calls out a slogan, saying something like "Zionists out!". One could reasonably deduce that the person doing so thinks of themselves as anti-Zionist.
  • A person explains, in speech of in writing, that they are opposed to Zionism.
  • Someone, eg the ADL, states that action or statement Y is anti-Zionist.
It is very unclear, however, what constitutes being a Zionist today. Looking at Israeli political parties and politicians, being Zionist spans the spectrum from:
  • wanting Israel to flourish within the 1967 borders, with full equality for its citizens and in peace with its neighbours
to:
  • wanting to grab more and more Palestinian land, or even parts of Jordan and Lebanon and to eject all Arabs from lands controlled by Israel
It is perfectly possible to be a Zionist (in the first of these two senses), while being fiercely critical of various actions of Israeli governments, or even of the Israeli population for electing such governments.
Consequently, it is unclear what constitutes being an anti-Zionist today:
  • Does it include only people who want there to no longer be a state called Israel and for all existing Jewish inhabitants of that state to be ejected?
  • Does it also include people who want Israel flourish within the 1967 borders, with full equality for its citizens and in peace with its neighbours?
  • Does it also include people who want a binational state?
  • Does it also include people who want a federation?
I hope that clarifies why I would strongly oppose removing the words "criticism of the Israeli government". Misha Wolf (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
See also the Guardian article cited in that para and Wikipedia articles Working definition of antisemitism and International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The final para of the latter's lead ends with the words "The IHRA has faced criticism that its definition conflates criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism." The ADL is, of course, fully on board with the IHRA definition (as is AIPAC) and performs precisely the same bad-faith contortions to justify the accusations of antisemitism levelled against critics of Israel's actions. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Consequently, it is unclear what constitutes being an anti-Zionist today If u r a Palestinian, I don't think its unclear at all. AZ is not just about being the opposite of whatever definition of Z happens to be in vogue last week. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If you're a Palestinian then you want to be treated as a human being, with the same rights as others. You don't give a damn what those others believe in (whether in the realm of politics or in the realm of religion). You care what they do. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Misha Wolf: I appreciate the nuance but this is being overly complicated. One important note of yours is that this isn't just criticisms of the Israeli government but Israel as a state including its military, judiciary and legislature; even its whole existence and legitimacy.
I think we should stick to RS including the Guardian article you cited which simply says "definition conflates criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Makeandtoss, as you will see by reading the first para of this section, all of this started when I inserted the words "criticism of the Israeli government with" between the words "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and" and "antisemitism.", resulting in "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism." That is, as you say, fully supported by the cited Guardian article. Those words were removed by another editor. I restored them, explaining why they are appropriate. I was then asked, by yet another editor, whether "a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism" is summarizable as "a new antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism". The purpose of my mini-essay above was to explain why the answer to that question is No. Re your concluding statement, that is (roughly) what the sentence now says. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Then let's go with "new anti-semitism definition, which conflates criticism Zionism or Israel with antisemitism." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There are two distinct, though related, things here:
The para currently mentions the former. What you are proposing means replacing it with the latter. Note that the IHRA's definition is not new. It was adopted (by the IHRA) in May 2016.
So we would be replacing:

along with its promotion of the concept of a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism

with something like:

along with its promotion of the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Zionism or Israel with antisemitism

FWIW, I think that this could stir up a hornets' nest as the proponents of the IHRA definition, including ADL, hotly deny that it does any such thing.
OTOH, we could stay with the "new antisemitism". See, for example, the Commentary Magazine citation I have just added. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
PS: Or we could mention both the new antisemitism and the IHRA definition. They are similar and both are heavily promoted by the ADL. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Misha Wolf: The IHRA definition is something tangible; an actual document. While the new antisemitism is a concept. For the sake of simplicity, and as the lede is a summary of the body, we should avoid mentioning IHRA in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Fine. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
We need to align closely with what high-quality third-party reliable sources say about the group's positions; placing refquotes from such RS in the article may be helpful to avoid content disputes. I made some edits to try to summarize more closely what the Guardian said, including a refquote; perhaps it helps to solve your question about the context of the IHRA definition. Llll5032 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League/Archive_11&oldid=1253944267"