Talk:Anti-Defamation League: Difference between revisions
Longhornsg (talk | contribs) |
Iskandar323 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
:::The sources should be [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. High-quality reference books including almanacs and textbooks that describe the group in totality are preferred, and yes, without cherrypicking but rather emphasizing what they emphasize. [[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]] ([[User talk:Llll5032|talk]]) 00:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
:::The sources should be [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. High-quality reference books including almanacs and textbooks that describe the group in totality are preferred, and yes, without cherrypicking but rather emphasizing what they emphasize. [[User:Llll5032|Llll5032]] ([[User talk:Llll5032|talk]]) 00:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Please take a step out of the progressive POV bubble -- the sources you go to make such an outlandish and frankly, ridiculous, claim as "It is clear that this organization is not interested in the civil rights of ALL of society" are blatantly biased and very POV (and [[Martin Luther King Jr]] [https://philadelphia.adl.org/selma-1965-adl-joins-the-march/ might disagree] with you). For the first sentence, perhaps let's not look to [https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/adl-greenblatt-extremist/ an opinion piece] in the left-wing ''[[Nation]]''. Let's follow your own advice and not cherry pick the sources we use. [[User:Longhornsg|Longhornsg]] ([[User talk:Longhornsg|talk]]) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
:::Please take a step out of the progressive POV bubble -- the sources you go to make such an outlandish and frankly, ridiculous, claim as "It is clear that this organization is not interested in the civil rights of ALL of society" are blatantly biased and very POV (and [[Martin Luther King Jr]] [https://philadelphia.adl.org/selma-1965-adl-joins-the-march/ might disagree] with you). For the first sentence, perhaps let's not look to [https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/adl-greenblatt-extremist/ an opinion piece] in the left-wing ''[[Nation]]''. Let's follow your own advice and not cherry pick the sources we use. [[User:Longhornsg|Longhornsg]] ([[User talk:Longhornsg|talk]]) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:It's a bit of a whitewash, yes. What the ADL is actually best known for is its scurrilous accusations of antisemitism, and as a particularly aggressive "Jewish defense organisation" - a real beast of the 20th century - and an integral arm of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US that works to tamp out criticism of Israel in its infancy by means of its scurrilous accusations of antisemitism. |
|||
:{{tq|Like Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt have faced ugly and unsubstantiated allegations of racism for drawing attention to the imbalance in US Middle East policy and the lobby's clout. Walt's Harvard colleague Alan Dershowitz labeled them "bigots" and "liars," and the Anti-Defamation League accused them of promulgating "a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control." Reams of angry newsprint later, these kneejerk cries of anti-Semitism have not registered, and for good reason. Plainly, a lobby that is universally recognized by Washington insiders---and even promotes itself---as one of the few most powerful in the country is influential. Saying so cannot be inherently anti-Semitic.}} [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164790?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents The Israel Lobby" in Perspective] |
|||
:{{tq|The Jewish and pro-Israeli forces have established strong support networks over many years through communal, faith-based, Zionist, and Jewish-defense organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League ...}} [https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=uoplawreview Targeting Free Speech & Redefining Antisemitism. P.624] |
|||
:{{tq|“There exists today a veritable cottage industry of organizations dedicating significant efforts to promoting the IHRA definition as a legally-mandated litmus test, designed to delegitimize if not criminalize criticism and activism on Israel, and especially boycotts. These include the Anti-Defamation League ...}} [https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=uoplawreview Targeting Free Speech & Redefining Antisemitism. P.640] [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:57, 27 November 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Defamation League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 June 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Anti-Defamation League. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
New antisemitism
@Bobfrombrockley: Nothing wrong with the current wording, which summarizes the criticism, and that is what a lede does. A possible compromise would be something along the lines of: "The ADL has consistently argued that anti-Zionism is a form of new antisemitism, a position which was criticized by some as a conflation of the two."Makeandtoss (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- What would be the source for that, because the only source cited in the relevant section of the body saying anything like that is Finkelstein and citing such a fringe view in the lead would be bizarre. This is undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is due however that ADL argues the anti-Zionism is a form of new antisemitism. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Who says Finkelstein, a subject-matter expert here, is fringe? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- He is at best controversial and his views should not be cited without attribution. We use him perfectly well in the body, but he is the only source in the body for this particular claim, ergo it should not be in the lead in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- On the page, the term is also critiqued by Edward S. Shapiro, and a less notable columnist, so this does not stand in isolation, and this is surely but a sampling of the criticisms. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Shapiro doesn’t use the term “anti-Zionism” and does not associate the new antisemitism with the ADL. He’s talking very specifically about the 1972 book (on the previous page he mentioned the authors were officials of the ADL, but he’s nit attributing the position to the ADL). The body describes his views accurately. The current sentence in the lead doesn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- On the page, the term is also critiqued by Edward S. Shapiro, and a less notable columnist, so this does not stand in isolation, and this is surely but a sampling of the criticisms. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- He is at best controversial and his views should not be cited without attribution. We use him perfectly well in the body, but he is the only source in the body for this particular claim, ergo it should not be in the lead in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Makeandtoss you should revert yourself Special:MobileDiff/1174592526 until you get consensus per WP:ONUS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus was established as this has been on the article for several weeks now. Your objection does not mean consensus is non-existent, it means there's more work to do, and that is what we are doing here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The current version is brand new wording. Your last version, calling the concept the ADL’s, was factually incorrect. You added the earliest version of this in July, I think, which was immediately followed by the talk page section above, “Controversies”, questioning that version. As far as I can see literally no other editor has argued in support of you. Reverting everyone else’s edits is not consensus; you need to make the argument and get support. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Iskandar does not seem to mind the current version. My latest version was amended and now it's no longer "factually incorrect". I made my argument and proposed two compromises. The ball is in your court. It could be that the criticism is undue, but the fact that ADL says anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism certainly isn't. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have spoken to a different point; I haven't spoken to any particular wording, per se. The necessary discussion here appears to first and foremost be one of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t oppose makeandtoss edit but they should add more sources as people might call it fringe and remove it otherwise. On the dispute of it being up I think it should be in the wiki page if it’s opposed in being in the lead as this could be used to remove it entirely which I oppose Bobisland (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection to this being in the article. My issue, as Iskandar says, is weight. I don’t think it belongs in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is Norman not considered a reliable source? Bobisland (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- “Norman” is a very controversial, polarising, partisan source. We note his opinions in the body (with attribution) because he’s noteworthy: we don’t use him as a source for facts so reliability isn’t an issue. My issue is whether his opinions can be expressed in the lead in wiki voice without attribution and whether he’s noteworthy enough to be in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t oppose makeandtoss edit but they should add more sources as people might call it fringe and remove it otherwise. On the dispute of it being up I think it should be in the wiki page if it’s opposed in being in the lead as this could be used to remove it entirely which I oppose Bobisland (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- If our wording is to be “ The ADL's support of the New Antisemitism idea has generated controversy” then don’t we need an independent secondary source saying this, rather than a single example of a critic? And if we say “some” have described it as conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, then we need more than one examples, who should all be notable. At the moment, we have a single primary source, which doesn’t make it due in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is it a primary source? Isn’t he separate from the ADL? Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- He's a primary source for his own opinion that the new antisemitism conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism. We currently say "some have described it" as such, but only have this single primary source showing that. Better to use secondary sources to avoid OR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The text partly paraphrases the end of the Britannica article,[1], but Britannica calls Finkelstein a pro-Palestinian activist and does not mention the new antisemitism. Are other neutral third-party sources available about the matter? Llll5032 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- How is it a primary source? Isn’t he separate from the ADL? Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have spoken to a different point; I haven't spoken to any particular wording, per se. The necessary discussion here appears to first and foremost be one of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Iskandar does not seem to mind the current version. My latest version was amended and now it's no longer "factually incorrect". I made my argument and proposed two compromises. The ball is in your court. It could be that the criticism is undue, but the fact that ADL says anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism certainly isn't. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The current version is brand new wording. Your last version, calling the concept the ADL’s, was factually incorrect. You added the earliest version of this in July, I think, which was immediately followed by the talk page section above, “Controversies”, questioning that version. As far as I can see literally no other editor has argued in support of you. Reverting everyone else’s edits is not consensus; you need to make the argument and get support. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus was established as this has been on the article for several weeks now. Your objection does not mean consensus is non-existent, it means there's more work to do, and that is what we are doing here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know why all the people complaining about sourcing here didn't bother to do a quick google scholar search:
In the United States, one the strongest promoters of various installments of the ‘new antisemitism’ thesis has been the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which in 1974 published a book entitled The New Anti-Semitism.[1]
I think inventing a prominent and controversial concept, and being a chief promoter of it, is worthy for mention in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)The ADL responded to these critiques as they came, but also in a cohesive way through a new book by Forster and Epstein titled The New Anti-Semitism, which would be their most important and best-selling publication.98 Like their previous books, The New Anti-Semitism stitched together a list of types of antisemitic threats, which had grown in length. In contrast to prior books focused on the far right and Arab propagandists, The New Anti-Semitism included the right-wing threat alongside threats that emanated from "The USSR, Western Europe, Latin America," and included "the Radical Left," "Arabs and Pro-Arabs," and Black Americans. Taken collectively, this bundle of threats, taken to include anti-Zionism, has been called the "New Anti-Semitism" from the book's publication onwards.[2]
- I've replaced the third-party source tag in the lead with these. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made some edits to that new language. For the last phrase, "the latter's inclusion has been the subject of critique", we need a third-party RS that describes critique of the ADL (per MOS:LEADREL) for including anti-Zionism in the new antisemitism. The Finkelstein book is too controversial to be the source. Llll5032 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've replaced the third-party source tag in the lead with these. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Romeyn, Esther (2020-03-14). "(Anti) 'new antisemitism' as a transnational field of racial governance". Patterns of Prejudice. 54 (1–2). Informa UK Limited: 199–214. doi:10.1080/0031322x.2019.1696048. ISSN 0031-322X.
- ^ Levin, Geoffery P. (2021). "Before the New Antisemitism: Arab Critics of Zionism and American Jewish Politics, 1917-1974". American Jewish History. 105 (1–2). Project MUSE: 103–126. doi:10.1353/ajh.2021.0005. ISSN 1086-3141.
Position on WW II US Japanese Internment camps
See Item 1 here:
https://irmep.com/2016/06/adls-challenge-to-pro-peace-justice-groups/
It also links to this document:
https://www.israellobby.org/ADL/1199215-000---100-HQ-530---Section5.PDF
Add to Controversies section? M.mk (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Information in the article needs to be cited to a high-quality third-party reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed academic journal, rather than self-published websites. Some acceptable sources are described in WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I edited the heading per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the line, " historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent" from the Origins section of this article. The source (ref. 25) for whether or not historians think a Jewish man is innocent or guilty cannot be a special interest group (Jewish) stating it to be the case with no sourcing of their own to back it up. It is the equivalent of me claiming the moon isn't real because some anti-moon non profit baselessly made the claim. 73.164.131.155 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}}
template. --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Add #BanTheADL or #BankruptTheADL campaing
Since is talked in the article about the #DropTheADL campaign started by progressive forces, we should also talk about the campaign started by the right. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you have the corresponding reliable sources, go ahead. ComradeHektor (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
First sentence: "… that specializes in civil rights law…"
The first thing we say about this organization is that it specializes in civil rights law – this makes it sound like a human rights organization. Yet our article quotes progressive groups who criticize it for "attacking social justice movements led by communities of color, queer people, immigrants, Muslims, Arabs, and other marginalized groups, while aligning itself with police, right-wing leaders, and perpetrators of state violence," and it has been characterized as an "anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian outfit."
I propose rather than taking a particular POV in the first paragraph, the first sentence should simply state and in-line attribute the organization's stated mission to "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all". Onceinawhile (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted because descriptions emphasized by the best available third-party sources are preferred over WP:MISSION statements. Llll5032 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Llll5032: OK, but we must not cherry pick the sources we use. It is clear that this organization is not interested in the civil rights of ALL of society, and appears to actively attack a number of marginalized groups. The current wording in the first paragraph of the lede is thus misleading and needs balance. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- The sources should be WP:BESTSOURCES. High-quality reference books including almanacs and textbooks that describe the group in totality are preferred, and yes, without cherrypicking but rather emphasizing what they emphasize. Llll5032 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please take a step out of the progressive POV bubble -- the sources you go to make such an outlandish and frankly, ridiculous, claim as "It is clear that this organization is not interested in the civil rights of ALL of society" are blatantly biased and very POV (and Martin Luther King Jr might disagree with you). For the first sentence, perhaps let's not look to an opinion piece in the left-wing Nation. Let's follow your own advice and not cherry pick the sources we use. Longhornsg (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Llll5032: OK, but we must not cherry pick the sources we use. It is clear that this organization is not interested in the civil rights of ALL of society, and appears to actively attack a number of marginalized groups. The current wording in the first paragraph of the lede is thus misleading and needs balance. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a whitewash, yes. What the ADL is actually best known for is its scurrilous accusations of antisemitism, and as a particularly aggressive "Jewish defense organisation" - a real beast of the 20th century - and an integral arm of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US that works to tamp out criticism of Israel in its infancy by means of its scurrilous accusations of antisemitism.
Like Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt have faced ugly and unsubstantiated allegations of racism for drawing attention to the imbalance in US Middle East policy and the lobby's clout. Walt's Harvard colleague Alan Dershowitz labeled them "bigots" and "liars," and the Anti-Defamation League accused them of promulgating "a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control." Reams of angry newsprint later, these kneejerk cries of anti-Semitism have not registered, and for good reason. Plainly, a lobby that is universally recognized by Washington insiders---and even promotes itself---as one of the few most powerful in the country is influential. Saying so cannot be inherently anti-Semitic.
The Israel Lobby" in PerspectiveThe Jewish and pro-Israeli forces have established strong support networks over many years through communal, faith-based, Zionist, and Jewish-defense organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League ...
Targeting Free Speech & Redefining Antisemitism. P.624“There exists today a veritable cottage industry of organizations dedicating significant efforts to promoting the IHRA definition as a legally-mandated litmus test, designed to delegitimize if not criminalize criticism and activism on Israel, and especially boycotts. These include the Anti-Defamation League ...
Targeting Free Speech & Redefining Antisemitism. P.640 Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Low-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions