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:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
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.
Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
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.
OceanicFeeling123 (
talk·contribs) has been paid by ADL on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
Hersei (
talk·contribs) has been paid by ADL on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article. the largest authorship editor in this article.
Declaration
What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−
is a New York–based international Jewishnon-governmental organization and advocacy group
+
is a New York–based international non-governmental organization and advocacy group
Why it should be changed: I was not able to find any RS inside or outside the article which currently refers to the ADL as a "jewish organization". ADL has roots in a jewish organization, but it has since split and become independent, as described in the article lede. For what it's worth, the ADL doesn't refer to itself as a Jewish organization anywhere
[1], so it seems bizarre to refer to it this way in the article.
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)reply
Edit request: The pressure from the ADL to cancel a Bard College class was unsuccessful
In the section on College classes and student organizations, it would be worthwhile to state whether the pressure from the ADL caused Bard College to cancel the class. Based on the cited
article, it sounds like the class was held as planned. The article says an Israeli diplomat "tried to persuade" Bard, and "The course was designed and taught by Nathan Thrall" (with the past-tense "taught" indicating the the class was not canceled).
−
In early 2023, the ADL pressured Bard College to cancel a course called "Apartheid in Israel-Palestine"
+
In early 2023, the ADL unsuccessfully pressured Bard College to cancel a course called "Apartheid in Israel-Palestine"
In June 2024, the progressive magazine Jewish Currents published a study analyzing the ADL's antisemitic incidents tracker. The study found a number of issues with the tracker, including unclear criteria for incidents, a lack of differentiation by degree, and a lack of political context. The analysts argued that these issues caused the tracker to erroneously count anti-Zionist political demonstrations as antisemitic incidents, and undercount white nationalist incidents and organizing. They concluded: "Since we found that most alleged antisemitic incidents in the Palestine solidarity movement lacked merit, the legitimately antisemitic Palestine-related incidents would appear as mere statistical noise when compared with the stunning growth of organized white nationalism." These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right.[1]Woolstation (
talk)
20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done I'm unclear if the sentence "These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right." is a summary of material found in the source or is an editorial addendum. If it's the latter, it's unsuitable for inclusion. (I was not able to locate it in the source cited, but feel free to correct me if I missed it somewhere.)
Chetsford (
talk)
03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's technically compliant with
MOS:LEAD, however, I'd suggest the lead section is currently somewhat unwieldly and unreadable and may be a little
WP:UNDUE for the amount of word count (as a percent of the total) it assigns to controversy and criticism. The third paragraph, specifically, probably could be rolled into the final paragraph and a lot of the details -- which are more suitable for the body -- trimmed. Additionally, information about 2019 revenue and finances is a snapshot in time better limited to the infobox and body than the lead (moreover, it's not currently in the body at all, as required by
MOS:LEADREL). Anyway, just a suggestion.
Chetsford (
talk)
03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am against the ban on ADL
The ADL may have a point of view, but it is not a propaganda organization and is a critical organization that fights hate not only against Jews but any marginalized community. We can care about Palestinians in Gaza without vilifying Israel. There has been lot of antisemitic reaction to the war in Gaza and now is not the time to undercut an institution critical to fighting hate. The editors dismissal the IHRA definition of antisemitism is bias in its own right. I imagine it’s over the portion stating that being anti-Zionist is a form of antisemitism. That denying Jews the right to self-determination in their historical homeland delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist. (No one questions other countries right to exist and Israel is a democracy, no matter how flawed). In any case, it’s too complicated for me to go into here, but American Jews are in crisis and ADL is a well regarded American institution fighting hate. I have been a donor to Wikipedia and I ask that you reconsider. Cynthia Wolff NYC
162.83.190.106 (
talk)
10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
Request help for The Signpost
The Signpost is Wikipedia's own community newsletter for Wikipedia news. Anyone can edit Signpost articles in the newsroom before publication. The next issue is due to be published 28 June.
If anyone is interested and available to develop the news story about Wikipedia's ADL evaluation and the resulting news media, then please contribute at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_the_media. Right now the story is framed as a news summary, but if anyone feels strongly, they can propose an opinion piece for this issue or any future issue. If anyone has comments about the news then please post to
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. That newsroom, and not this Wikipedia article talk page, is the place to discuss the Wikipedia community narrative of this story. It is likely that Wikipedia's news story will influence future journalism on this topic.
Bluerasberry (talk)14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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?
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: Armenian genocide denial is very much a prominent controversy documented in the article. MOS:LEDE states that the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) moved from a new section by ꧁Zanahary꧂15:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand it’s prominent, but I don’t believe that it is in the top five most significant aspects of the organization’s history of advocacy, which its placement in the lead implied. What if mention of Armenian genocide denial was moved to the final lead paragraph where its controversies are discussed? ꧁Zanahary꧂15:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
The firms filing suit are subject to Fed. R. 11 Sanctions for bringing a suit known to be meritless, and as such, the claims have inherent credibility. The article should reference as much to avoid the existing one-sided critique of the ADL's assertions re SJP.
Willsue4food (
talk)
21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
These comments about sanctions are
original research. Please propose a reliable (non-tabloid) source which specifically mentions this lawsuit as it relates to the ADL. If reliable sources do not explain how this lawsuit relates to the ADL, neither should this article. To put it more broadly, this is an encyclopedia, so our goal isn't just to list events we think are relevant, it is to provide context, and the way we do that is via reliable (mostly
independent) sources about the ADL.
Grayfell (
talk)
22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The mere fact a lawsuit occurred is insufficient to include in a WP article unless it is covered by RS. Per
WP:NPOV"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A lawsuit that was not covered by any RS does not represent a "significant view ... published by reliable sources" merely because we can prove it occurred.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTNEWS Lawsuits are notoriously common in the US. The fact it is covered by RS does not necessarily mean it meets
WP:WEIGHT. Alas, sanctions for bringing meritless suits are extremely rare and the possibility does not provide inherent credibility to lawsuits.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Prior comment disagreed with the proposed edit because of the claim the lawsuit was not covered by RS. My response was that it was covered by RS.
The requested edit was to provides a counterpoint to the opinion article accusing the ADL of defaming SJP by making the allegation. The ADL's accusation was not made in a vacuum, and by linking only to the accusation by Ackerman that the claim was without fact, and not noting that others have made the same claims (supported by evidence), provides a slanted view on the issue. This is especially important as while the Nation is considered a RS, the linked Ackerman piece is an opinion piece.
And while Rule 11 sanctions are rare, I would note that the Complaint includes detailed evidence in support of the claims -- an issue which the Ackerman opinion piece asserts is lacking.
Willsue4food (
talk)
15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The complaint is just allegations and is not a reliable source. Lawsuits generally throw everything at the wall within reach. As for Ackerman saying the lawsuit is without merit; that is an automatic response. So, we say the lawsuit was filed and the allegations were denied. In the case that something comes of the lawsuit, then we can update the article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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:
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.
Again, we need reliable, independent sources to explain for us why this this lawsuit is encyclopedically important to the ADL. Sources which do not mention the ADL are useless for this purpose. It is also not enough for the ADL to be mentioned in the lawsuit itself as a
WP:PRIMARY document. Instead, we need sources to explain why this matters to the ADL. We cannot fill in this gap with out own understanding of the topic, because that is
WP:OR.
Grayfell (
talk)
18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No Historians' Consensus of Frank's Innocence
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)reply
Regarding: "historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent. [25]" there is no such consensus. The evidence in fact overwhelmingly points to Leo Frank's guilt. Instead, this section should read, "In a May 13, 2009 column in the pro-Zionist, ADL-sympathizing Jewish publication 'Forward', Allison Gaudet Yarrow claimed 'historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent' without providing support for her claim. Leo Frank's attorney stating on his deathbed that he believed Frank was innocent, and, 72 years after the fact, Steve Oney, editor of Los Angeles Magazine, stating that he too believed in Frank's innocence, by no means constitutes any consensus of historians. [25]"
68.96.85.98 (
talk)
15:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
"In June 2024, the Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I explicitly don't want to comment upon this decision because I don't know much neither about this decision nor the ADL. However, this sentence lacks factual accuracy, in my opinion. It was the community of the English-language Wikipedia that did so. Being a long-time and active user of the German-language Wikipedia, I am somewhat irritated that this is presented as a decision of "the
Wikipedia community". There are several articles in German-speaking countries repeating this claim that "the Wikipedia community" took this decision and we didn't even know what they were talking about. Please correct this sentence.
Mautpreller (
talk)
14:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
[...] 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
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)reply
“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.
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
B or C, with the caveat that the scope of C would need to be expanded to cover "Wikipedia and Israel" and "Wikipedia and Zionism", in addition to its current scope ("Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict").
Misha Wolf (
talk)
20:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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 ..."
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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.
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.
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
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.
A or B: I don't seport merging, nor do I support removing it. The English Wikipedia community's designation of the reliability of the ADL on the israël-palestine conflict is definitely notable enough to warrant its own article.
A SocialistTrans Girl22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A - For transparency, changed my username from sawerchessread. We have a bias towards wikipedia news. We should recognize it and realize that this was a news story for a day and ended already. Not notable enough for its own article.
Bluethricecreamman (
talk)
23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe D, otherwise E - Frankly, the whole section seems like blatant
Wikipedia:Navel-gazing. I can't imagine either the ADL or the average reader really cares what Wikipedia's opinion of the ADL's Israel-Palestine viewpoint is. The issue seems very small compared to the ADL, so all the article space we seem to be dedicating to it feels very
WP:UNDUE. This seems more like something we should dedicate a sentence at most to.
NickCT (
talk)
18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A or B: Because the controversy is specifically about the ADL, the main content should be in this article or its own spinoff.
Senorangel (
talk)
05:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply