Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Jewish organization

@Llll5032: Lack of tertiary sources is not an argument. WP:TERTIARY: "tertiary sources may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other". There is no contradiction, all reliable sources unanimously agree the ADL is a Jewish organization. Secondary sources are more than enough.

• CNN
• CBS news
• US Department of Justice
• Time of Israel
• Chicqao Tribune
• Washington Post
• The Arab-Israeli Conflict in American Political Culture
• [1]Makeandtoss (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of those sources are good and pass WP:V, but are they enough to merit the MOS:FIRST sentence, or does the absence or lack of emphasis by most sources, especially tertiary sources, make it more suitable for a different sentence at the top? That is the question being considered. Some of the sources you cited do not say the ADL is a Jewish organization in their own first sentences about the group; should Wikipedia consolidate such information in the first sentence, or follow the average emphases of RS? Llll5032 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, tertiary sources ‘’’may be’’’ used to assess due weight when secondary sources are ‘’’contradictory’’’. Your insistence on this point is invalid and counter constructive. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course these sources are sufficient to establish this. These are US sources, Israeli sources, and books all saying the same thing. WP:BURDEN is amply fulfilled. Are there any sources that deny or counter this notion? I suspect not. @Llll5032: You are speaking to MOS:FIRST, but it is not like you eliminated the term solely from the first sentence based on WP:DUE considerations, and moved the material down the lead; you simply removed it wholesale. There is a contradiction between your presented arguments and the actions you performed on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-reading some of the links above, I agree that MOS:FIRST may be fulfilled by them, especially the book, so I am self-reverting per WP:CAREFUL. Other editors removed the statement before and after me, and I am not opposing their arguments, but I am now neutral about whether to include in the first sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Israel group

ADL has been described as a pro-Israel group by multiple sources, before anyone removes this information again. [2], [3], [4], [5]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Historians Today

The article claimed that 'historians today generally consider Frank innocent'. This line is taken directly from the source (reference 20). Within the source however, which is a heavily biased one, the statement is unsupported by claims from any historians. It appears to be an editorialisation and not appropriate for a wikipedia article. The ADL claims that Frank was innocent, but no evidence is provided to support that this is a general view of historians or academics.

Can anyone provide further context on this, or more appropriate sources to back this claim? If the claim can't be substantiated it should be removed as otherwise the article is simply republishing a journalists opinion. 2A00:23C7:CD84:C501:E878:57D2:6F53:7AA (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

More sources say that in the Leo Frank article, such as CNN, but CNN does not name the ADL so it is not cited in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Organization name change

When did the ADL drop "B'nai B'rith" from its name, and what were the circumstances of the change? The article should include this.

Paul Richter (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Paul Richter (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I found this article from the Amistad Research Center/Tulane University claiming that the ADL became independent of B'nai B'rith and changed their name accordingly in 2009. I also found this from the Social Networks and Archival Context, which appears to have taken the article wholesale from the first source, I presume for archival purposes. I can't seem to find anything else regarding this name change. I'll add this to the article, but if anyone else finds information regarding this topic, feel free to edit the change. MyNameIsPixul (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I just realized that this article has edit protection, and my account is too new to make the change. If anyone else wants to make the addition themselves, feel free to do so. MyNameIsPixul (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If verified, that would be a relevant addition to the history section, but do any other sources including ADL confirm? Llll5032 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I have not found any other sources confirming this is the case, including the ADL's website. MyNameIsPixul (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source provided above? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

Lede is a summary of article including its most prominent controversies according to WP:LEDE. There is no reason for the removal of perfectly sourced content. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEADREL says, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." A controversy that is routinely mentioned by a major proportion of the reliable sources that currently discuss the group would be justified for the lead section. But are any of the controversies recently added to the top considered important enough by reliable sources to justify such a long and prominent paragraph? Llll5032 (talk)

There aren't any sources discussing the group, as with any other organization most are mentioned in news articles discussing their activities. Their refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide for example generated a lot of controversy in the press and is discussed widely in the literature. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The trimmed down version seems reasonable, though one's attention is now drawn to the other sections, including the history and political positions sections, are also not summarized in the lead. Overall, the lead still has some way to go. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the topics mentioned at the top should be in proportion to reliable sources about the ADL overall, in books, journals, and news articles. For example, the #DroptheADL campaign currently lacks the variety of RS that could justify a full sentence at the top, although it is DUE for later in the article. A summary at the top based on the start of the Reception section (edit: and also the History and Positions sections) could be more proportionate than the current wording. Llll5032 (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Has enough reliable coverage. [6], [7], [8]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian link you shared [9] does not mention the "Drop the ADL" campaign until a late paragraph. So perhaps Wikipedia should follow. Llll5032 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a late paragraph in the lede. The Guardian article wasn't event about the campaign, but they still thought it is worth a brief mention. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed it from the top per MOS:LEADREL ("emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources") and WP:PROPORTION because RS have not generally said the 2020 campaign was important in the group's history. It might be cited proportionately in a summary of conflicts with other groups, if many RS describe them, but alone it is not due for a full sentence at the top. Llll5032 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Many RS have described it and refusal to acknowledge that is not constructive to improving this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If there are many RS, can you cite more of them? If there are not, then please self-revert your latest edit per WP:ONUS and the contentious topics procedure at the top of this page, and seek consensus here instead. You have already tried to add this content to the top [10][11] twice previously. Llll5032 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica's article about ADL, which was updated in 2023, omits most of the controversies that were added to the top of this article this week, such as the 2020 "Drop the ADL" campaign, Mandela, and the Armenian genocide recognition. Do any other tertiary sources describe those controversies prominently, to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT for the top? Llll5032 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:ONUS, we need to remove most of the controversies recently added to the top, because they do not appear to be mentioned in recently published WP:TERTIARY sources. Per WP:TERTIARY, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." The Britannica entry describes controversy regarding ADL's support of Israel, but not the other controversies. Those controversies should be kept later in this article rather than being at the top, unless they are either found in other tertiary sources or can be shown to have much more WP:SIGCOV in more prominent secondary sources than is currently cited. Llll5032 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian article is a tertiary source and mentions the controversy. The two other sources cited also mention the controversy as the a primary topic. Definitely notable enough to be mentioned briefly in lede, which again is a summary of article body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the Guardian article is a secondary source. Tertiary sources are encyclopedias and other compendia. A mention midway through a secondary reliable source's article does not make it notable enough for a whole sentence at the top. You have now tried to include a sentence in the top four times without gaining consensus. [12][13][14][15] (Please see Note B in MOS:LEAD: "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.") However, a citation to the dispute could be due to keep as one of three references for a short summary of controversies regarding Israel at the top, "ADL's defenses of Israel have put it at odds with some groups sympathetic to Palestinians", which is supported by a tertiary source. Would you like to discuss that statement? Llll5032 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree these are not due in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

We appear to lack consensus to include Mandela or the Armenian genocide at the top based on the current sources. Can anyone cite a tertiary source for them? Llll5032 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Your request for a tertiary source is unreasonable. A tertiary source would help determine notability but it is not mandatory. It was notable enough to be mentioned in the Guardian article that was not even about the controversy.

As for the Britannica source, it talks about conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, but was nevertheless removed from the lede. The current wording about how this was criticized exclusively by pro-Palestinian groups is not correct, as many neutral individuals and groups, including Jewish ones, had objected to some of this policy of the ADL. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The wording at the top does not use the words "exclusively" or "pro-Palestinian groups". Inclusion at the top might be proportionate for controversies described by a large number of important secondary RS, but the controversies mentioned, besides Israel, do not yet appear to be. You are correct that the wording is shorter than Britannica's final paragraph, for proportion and summary style ("the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points"). The Britannica article[16] mentions many aspects of the group that are not in the top of this article. The top needs to be generally in proportion to descriptions by available RS regarding the history of the group. Llll5032 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." The body extensively covers all of these controversies and since the lede is a summary of the body, then they definitely deserve a place at the top.

"put it at odds with some groups sympathetic to Palestinians." definitely implies that it was only controversial to them and not to anyone else, which is factually incorrect. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, MOS:LEADREL says, "Emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." I disagree that the wording "put it at odds with some groups sympathetic to Palestinians" is very exclusive, because many groups are sympathetic, but perhaps other wording would be better if it follows WP:BESTSOURCES and does not overstate the controversy. Llll5032 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"...according to published reliable sources" and not "according to published tertiary sources". Multiple sources were presented and rejected.

On the contrary, your phrasing of "put it at odds with some groups sympathetic to Palestinians" is the wording that is original research and doesn't rely on any source. The wording I had does not attempt to add OR commentary into it. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The wording is a shorter summary of the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the Britannica entry [17], not OR. Perhaps you could help find more WP:BESTSOURCES to confirm WP:PROPORTION about the specific controversies you want to include. Llll5032 (talk) Llll5032 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are merely a guide, and their input is far from absolute. Tertiary sources coverage is not required to include details in the lead, least of all coverage in Britannica, which is far from a gold standard tertiary source, though the author here may have imported some of the material from the superior Sage. Wikipedia does, as a matter of course, include notable controversies in ledes, and it may simply be the case that the Armenia material has been better captured here than elsewhere. The Mandela material ultimately pertains to the Israel-Palestine conflict, much like the 'new antisemitism' criticism. Perhaps it is too specific. A more general summary of the criticism of ADL's somewhat conflicted agenda regarding the conflict might be more appropriate, e.g. the core critique that it weaponizes antisemitism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you found WP:BESTSOURCES that include such a summary in their own words? Llll5032 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you yourself found any source that supports the "groups sympathetic to Palestinians"? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote, the phrase is a very short summary of the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the Britannica article,[18] and the wording is negotiable because all Wikipedia wording is. If you search online with the terms "Anti-Defamation League" and "groups sympathetic to Palestinians", then you will see that it has been used occasionally by writers who are sympathetic to Palestinians. Llll5032 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I have specified that there are two groups involved: "critics of the occupation" and "those sympathetic to the Palestinians" - overlapping but separate. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the long phrase in the third paragraph could be condensed, if a shorter version is commonly used by WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We have a more trimmed down summary of controversies in the lead than when this topic was opened and I think it's mostly OK now. The Armenian genocide issue is clearly due in the lead. I am not convinced South Africa is, and am certain that new antisemitism (a term that is far from specific to ADL) isn't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the ADL and South Africa, have any secondary or tertiary sources mentioned the ADL in relation to the issue since 2010, when the book about Israeli policies was reviewed? Llll5032 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Subject on lead wording

Using “sought to counter” instead of “opposed” seems to be worse wording using Oxford, I don’t know why it was reverted Bobisland (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t mind either wording in that paragraph, but pro-Israel is not due in the first sentence; it should stay in the paragraph where it was. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok going to try new wording of “as a pro-Israel group” Bobisland (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Britannica wording,[19] which that sentence is based on, is somewhat more specific. I added "has", and perhaps more nuance may be needed. Llll5032 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hate on Display

The Anti-Defamation League advertises its Hate on Display™ hate symbols database to educators. It provides an overview of many of the symbols most frequently used by a variety of white supremacist groups and movements, as well as some other types of hate groups. The organization provides teaching and learning materials on hate symbols to provide an opportunity for learners to reflect on the importance of symbols in our society, understand more about specific hate symbols and identify strategies for responding to and eliminating hate symbols. Lisa Rechelle (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The "organization" is anti white. It displays symbols that are asscociated with people who simply are proud to be white as hate symbols. Because they are anti white. ADL is irrelevant just because of this. 46.97.168.45 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NONAZIS Dricoust (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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,[20], 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)

• 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.

  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.

  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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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 Perspective

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 ... 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)

I almost have to laugh at how ridiculous this first claim is: "What the ADL is actually best known for is its scurrilous accusations of antisemitism." Best known for? Across 100 years of history, with a library of books written about the organization, that's what it's best known for? And the proof is 2 biased articles (read: not unreliable) about a recent political debate? What a baseless, shockingly POV claim from the corners of the Internet. This is really weak material to support such outlandish claim, I expected better.

Obviously, editors on a certain side have a strong predilection for jumping down the throat of the ADL. I would ask again, that we take a step out of bubbles of biased, POV sources as our only wellspring of RS from which to pursue partnership, NPOV, and editorial integrity.

For example, American Muslims may be shocked to hear that the ADL is only interested in civil rights for Jews (ADL starts interfaith coalition to help US Muslims, Jewish activist vows solidarity with Muslims in the US, 'MuJews': Muslims and Jews Band Together Against Hate). African-Americans would have to ignore ADL's work with the NAACP over decades [21], [22], [23], especially on anti-lynching and hate crimes protections.

The Netanyahu government would be shocked to hear that the ADL, a frequent critic of Israel itself, deems any criticism of Israel antisemitic:

• ADL harshly rebuking racist Netanyahu rhetoric
• ADL expressing concern over far-right involvement in Israeli government
• ADL upbraiding Netanyahu for anti-Israeli Arab rhetoric
• ADL criticizing the PM's own son for hateful imagery

Can we please stick to NPOV and tone down the hyperbole? Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of those linked items, which appear to be well-sourced, could be good additions to sections of the article. Llll5032 (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the group doesn't pay lip service to civil rights: it wouldn't have maintained the illusion that it has for so long had it not. However, if you'll actually note the body of content on this page, you will find c. 10 mentions of "civil rights" versus c. 60 mentions of "antisemitism" and 80+ mentions of "Israel", so even basic word association provides a more pointed set of keywords than the current selection in the first paragraph. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So the assertion here is that for 100 years, 40% of which time the state of Israel did not even exist, the ADL played a long con and "paid lip service to civil rights" in order to maintain a veneer of civil rights credibility so that in the 21st century it could besmirch critics of Israel as antisemitic? Please keep personal options out of this and stick to the facts.

Good point out on the WP:WEIGHT issues in the article, the WP:UNDUE focus on Israel. Will work on bringing proper balance of the ADL's historic activities based on RS. Longhornsg (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This ADL Q&A goes to the heart of this. See below the claims they admit to facing:

• ADL supports racist, militarized policing
• ADL supports repressing Palestinian rights, smearing critics of colonialism as “antisemites”
• ADL supports actual antisemites and other right-wing, racist influencers
• ADL contributes to Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Racism
• ADL tramples anti-racist, immigrant, Queer, and other justice movements
• ADL unfairly criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar and only targets progressive members of Congress
• ADL has a history of targeting and “surveilling” progressive movements

We should ensure these claims are all represented, with ADL's rebuttals. It appears much of the evidence supporting the claims comes from here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

But policies such as WP:BESTSOURCES and explanatory essays such as WP:INDY make clear that articles go by what the highest quality independent reliable sources say, not what the group or its opponents say. Llll5032 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 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)

Classic Wikipedia bias 142.161.56.115 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Change "Jewish" to "Zionist" they are not synonymous. 2600:1700:DB:8010:ED9E:DF93:658F:B05A (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, you should provide sources that explicitly refer to ADL as Zionist. Liu1126 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Last edit

I fail to see why quotes were cut in half; why context was removed from ADL's actions regarding congress resolution and other initiative; and why we are talking in Wikipedia voice that ADL fights antisemitism rather than aims to fight antisemitism (as if we are endorsing their -controversial- work? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Those recent edits are by different editors and are in different sections of the article. Perhaps they should be discussed under separate headings to focus on the content for each? Llll5032 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, your edit appears to have re-introduced at least one close paraphrase, the final sentence, which is not allowed. Please fix or self-revert. Llll5032 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As an outsider passer-by on a corridor between two aisles, I agreed that paraphrasing sentence that's not actually what the source said about what critics said, looks like a WP:SYNTH. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reversions

Quite interesting how recently-added content has been decontextualized, and dewatered. The phrasing "the latter's inclusion has been the subject of debate" is a complete watering down of the Guardian source and of the Levin source, which explicitly mention the word criticism. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, please review WP:CLOP, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:OVERQUOTING carefully. Some of what you added was DUE, but the encyclopedia can neither overstate what the RS say nor copy sentences from a RS with trivial word changes. WP:DUEWEIGHT means some information from the Guardian article should be included, but multiple long paragraphs should be based on a number of WP:BESTSOURCES, not a single RS. Especially at the top of the article, statements are based on the balance of available WP:BESTSOURCES, so a single source generally does not result in such major changes. Llll5032 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding: the only reversion I made in my edits was this edit to the top; the rest were conventional edits. Llll5032 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing has nothing to do with removing quotes on how the "anti-defamation league" was defaming anti-war Jewish activists. Due weight has nothing to do with removing context on how the ADL continued to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism while it was facing increased internal dissent. Sticking to the source means we contextualize everything. Overquoting is defined by quotes dominating the article which is not the case here. The Guardian is quite literally the best source we have in this article about this issue; it is the most up-to-date source, it is completely dedicated to the ADL's conflation; and it describes in explicit terms what critics of ADL have said. It is becoming increasingly challenging for me to view these reversions, that were done without accurate consideration of WP guidelines, in good faith. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Please self-revert as you have violated 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, my edit was a WP:BRB that includes some context from the source you had added. It followed your re-inserting your own preferred wording in that sentence, when you reverted another editor's changes along with mine. Llll5032 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

{@Llll5032: Your edit was a revert, the second one in less than 24 hours. Again, please familiarize yourself with 1RR and immediately reverse yourself as this would be a violation of WP:ARBPIA3 and is subject to discretionary sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have self-reverted to comply with WP:1RR. @Makeandtoss, it would be a sign of good faith if you also self-reverted to the sentence's wording in this edit that a third editor had edited for NPOV concerns, instead of your original language. Llll5032 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Llll5032, are you happy for the article to be clear on these accusations in the lede? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to include the controversy briefly and neutrally within the previously stable language, per WP:VOICE and MOS:LEADREL. My opinion could change if more WP:BESTSOURCES change their emphasis about the group. Llll5032 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph states in Wikipedia's voice and in present tense that the ADL ...specializes in civil rights law and aims to combat antisemitism and extremism, and doesn't mention Israel advocacy at all.

Yet here we have a large number of sources stating that its primary focus has changed in recent decades. As we strive for neutrality here we need to address both these sentences together.

If you have time I recommend watching Defamation (film) - it gives an unvarnished inside view on how this organization works.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As for any change, the way to support it is to cite multiple WP:BESTSOURCES, because "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Some of the recent reverts that are currently in the article use loaded language and overrode mine and other editors' NPOV edits.[24][25] We need to mind WP:ONUS, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:CONSENSUS, and carefully summarize the WP:DUEWEIGHT of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES with neither understatement nor overstatement. Llll5032 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, claiming it was unexplained, though there was in fact an explanation in the edit summary. The version you’ve reverted to is non neutral. The use of the word “conflate”, which can mean “confuse” is non neutral. As is removing the link to new-antisemitism, which is a well established concept, for a newly created article which simply alleges that the viewpoint is in bad faith. This allegation should not be in wikivoice. Drsmoo (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Drsmoo. Some of the recent changes to that paragraph in the top section clearly lack consensus, and should not have been warred back in after multiple editors objected. A more consensus wording should be used. Llll5032 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice Drsmoo's intermediate edit, but glad all four of us have consensus on that version and phrasing now. I have self-reverted to that more balanced version that is more in line with the source. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial self-revert, which is an improvement, but we do not have consensus yet. I would prefer wording similar to this different edit, which is a more careful update to the stable text as of a week ago. Such wording would be more in line with the RS in citing controversies due to the group's stands on the overall Israel-Palestinian conflict rather than only to the new antisemitism definition. Phrasing about new antisemitism should be kept neutrally descriptive rather than favoring a specific line of argument, unless more independent WP:BESTSOURCES summarize that specific argument using their own words. Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That version waters down criticism of the group and its role in the weaponization of antisemitism; and on top of that, does not even reflect the in-line citation, nor does it reflect the body, which a lede should summarize. The Guardian is the best source we have: up to date and specializing in this topic of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The term “weaponization of antisemitism” is a criticism of new-antisemitism. The concept of new antisemitism is well established among scholars of antisemitism, and is not viewed as “weaponization” by most Jewish studies scholars or Jewish organizations. Drsmoo (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So? We said critics of ADL have criticized their conflation, we didn't say anything about Jewish scholars or organizations and "weaponization" in the current version of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Of editors who have edited the fourth paragraph, Makeandtoss and Onceinawhile have supported this new text, Cat12zu3 and I have supported a more incrementally updated version of the stable text ante bellum (see WP:STATUSQUO), and I am not clear about what Drsmoo's opinion is. What is the consensus? Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Boston Review

@Llll5032: At this point you are engaging in blatant censorship of criticism leveled at ADL and this is completely unacceptable. In this new incident, you did not remove the quotation and paraphrase it, as outlined in WP:OVERQUOTATION (which doesn't even apply here, as I argued above), you completely removed how the ADL was criticized for propagating "anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer hate" and islamophobia; replacing the quote with "She wrote that the ADL's role in anti-hate efforts had insulated it from deserved scrutiny, and that it had undermined the American left including some black-led groups in such efforts".

{{{1}}} Makeandtoss (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed this does not look good. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope you can consider the possibility that the edit was made in good faith and had some merit based on the explanation below. Also, I never wrote that this was an example of "overquotation". Llll5032 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, here is the source wording for the quotation, in the Boston Review essay: "It draws instead on the ADL’s much broader authority it has won over anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer “hate.”" Compare that to its summary in this article: "Gelman further says the ADL has propagated 'anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer hate'". That wording took the quotation very far out of its immediate context in the source, and was also an unallowed minor alteration of the quotation itself (which marked 'hate' with its own quotation marks). The Boston Review essay does not say directly that the ADL "propagated" hate, but rather said that the ADL's authority on anti-black, anti-immigrant and anti-queer hate and Islamophobia was unearned and unwarranted, and that the ADL had opposed black and queer groups. Perhaps my edit could be improved, but perhaps you will also agree after reading this that your revert was in error? Also, talk page headings must be neutral per WP:TALKHEADPOV, so I changed the heading. Llll5032 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies then, it seems I have taken the summary verbatim as true. You can edit that part accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Makeandtoss:. Since you appear to agree now that I acted in good faith and that the edit was valid, you may want to strike through statements in which you implied that I had not acted in good faith. Llll5032 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

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)

Go ahead and remove it. You have my consensus. There is no credible historian that thinks Frank was innocent much less a consensus of such historians. Plus, as you noted, the citation is from the Jewish Forward (far from a credible source). Guillermo Sanders (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (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)

Keith Woods is not a 'self described raging antisemite'

The deceptive lie that Keith Woods has described himself as a raging antisemite has been refuted by him multiple times and should be removed from this article See here [26]https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1700091804677280041?t=da95HSWQ8zQ_EsnOJ6Zd9w&s=19 Malkanath-the-Hated (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with this text. Woods may be a raging antisemite, and I don't care about tweeted denials. But I don't like the sourcing for a BLP issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The three cited sources also describe Woods as an Irish white nationalist and an Irish neo-Nazi. Would one of those descriptions be more appropriate? Llll5032 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

These are also unsubstantiated lies. Woods is and identifies as an Irish ethno-nationalist, not a white nationalist or a neo-nazi. This description would be appropriate. Malkanath-the-Hated (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

He is not a raging antisemite however. There is no evidence for this and there never has been. The description should be removed accordingly. Malkanath-the-Hated (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Irish white nationalist" is the description the RS most commonly used in their own words while describing the controversy, so it seems most suitable per WP:BLPSTYLE ("avoiding both understatement and overstatement"), WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:PCR. Five RS are now cited about the controversy relating to Woods, with similar descriptions of him, and more appear to be available if there are questions about WP:WEIGHT. Is that a reasonable edit? Llll5032 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"... that specializes in civil rights law and combatting antisemitism and extremism"

I have removed this part of the first sentence, as it is partly duplicative, and what is left behind has a much more balanced feel. To say that the ADL's "specialism" is "civil rights law and combatting antisemitism and extremism" is misleading, because of the order of words and because of what it leaves out. A more fulsome description of its specialism might be "combatting antisemitism and engaging in political advocacy for American Jewish communities and for Israel". The references to civil rights law and extremism are sub-points of this, and are expanded on in more detail later. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Elements of that text in the first sentence have been stable for twenty years and are cited to some WP:TERTIARY and other sources, so I restored it for now. For example, Britannica begins with "Anti-Defamation League, advocacy organization established in Chicago in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination." Should WP:BESTSOURCES be discussed in support of editing it, per MOS:FIRST? Llll5032 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither the four sources (at least those available online) nor the 20-years-ago version support the text you just re-added. Let's engage in discussing what a perfect intro paragraph should state. I have given a view above, and you have given the Britannica example here.

In the meantime, the current clause needs to go as it is currently unsupported. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Which words in the longstanding clause that you removed are currently unsupported by the cited RS? Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This thread is not about whether the individual words can be individually sourced. It is about whether the formulation as used represents NPOV. None of the sources you have brought use an equivalent formulation to the one in the title of this thread. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are the sources cited in the first sentence in this article. The tertiary sources begin with descriptions that are similar to the clause you removed. Perhaps refquotes are needed in the article for more WP:V, or you could clarify how the formulation differs from the sources. If your question is about WP:DUEWEIGHT, then perhaps other WP:BESTSOURCES, especially tertiary sources, could be discussed or cited. Llll5032 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Britannica does not mention a specialism in civil rights – it mentions some activities in this area, alongside the charge that it has abandoned civil rights – and doesn't include the word extremism at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Britannica lists the ADL's three "Areas Of Involvement" as anti-Semitism, civil rights, and hate crime, and notes the activism during the civil rights movement in two sentences within its article. At the end of its article, Britannica notes controversy over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and says its "detractors have accused it of abandoning its original civil rights mission"; that fact is usable with attribution in this article, but would it negate that the group specializes in civil rights law? Perhaps refquotes to RS for each claim should clarify. Llll5032 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so that's from the Britannica infobox I see (not sure how far we should trust these), but in the body, it isn't specifically tied to civil rights after 1964. And what about "extremism"? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In the 1980s, testimony was put before Congress that their tactics in fact converge to create a personal and a political threat to the civil rights of Arab Americans and their organizations". [27] Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems wholly sensible – like an actual description, not a promo. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be an actual description if it was not in WP voice; "combatting antisemitism and extremism" makes it look as if this is indeed true, which, as we can see from the numerous controversies, is not necessarily true. A solution to avoid stating this in WP voice would be something around "whose mission is to combat..." or "whose stated aim is to combat.." Whether they indeed done so or not is a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Coca-Cola Company's mission statement is "To refresh the world and make a difference."

We don't include this in the article's lead paragraph; instead we just describe its primary activities.

As our article Mission statement says about their disadvantages: "…Unrealistic: In some cases, mission statements be too optimistic…" Onceinawhile (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is also very true. My point was about the least that could be done, instead of the current version in WP voice.

References

Edits to Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section

Revert-warring this extra text back in without gaining consensus first does not seem to comply with WP:STATUSQUO or WP:ONUS. Although The Guardian is a reliable source, having 11 sentences that cite only that one source and no others appears excessive (see WP:DUEWEIGHT); some of the wording is repetitive; and WP:OVERQUOTING encourages shorter summaries rather than quotations. Do any other editors agree with Makeandtoss that this longer version of the text is necessary to the article? Llll5032 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

11 sentences citing one very important source, if not the main source on the topic is not excessive, since WP:UNDUE states: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". There are no differing viewpoints in the Guardian, thus the proportion of this viewpoint is very due, if not exlusively due.

As for WP:OVERQUOTING it is defined as when "it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere; quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased; the quotations dominate the article or section." which also doesn't apply here.

Do you have any other WP-based arguments why you object to my edit? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

For the 11 sentences that cite the Guardian article as their only source, are no other WP:GREL sources available? Your reasoning seems unusual; while no one disputes that the Guardian article is relevant and should be used, in fact more WP:DUEWEIGHT is generally given to claims highlighted by multiple RS, not selected from a single RS. Llll5032 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That is only because you moved a supporting paragraph with a different source to the timeline section. To respond to your concerns, I have moved it back, deleted a duplicate paragraph, remove two quotations, and added another source. Please if you have any sources with opposing views I would gladly consider them to improve the current text. If not, then undue weight argument does not hold here, as this seems to be the only viewpoint on this controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Does moving all information about the ADL's responses to the Israel-Hamas war into a section you have now renamed "Conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism" accurately reflect the emphasis of RS? Adding a new source is welcome, but some of these edits included even more reversions rather than consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The move is related to that section and is completely relevant there. I am editing per BRD, so I am looking forward to seeing your constructive suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Except for the addition of the Forward source, I do not think that these edits were improvements, and some aspects were reverts warred in[28][29] without consensus. The relocation of all information about the ADL's responses to the Israel-Hamas war from the neutral "2020s" chronology into a section that is newly renamed "Conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism", along with other unattributed descriptions of "conflation" in Wikivoice, added a POV that is discouraged by WP:VOICE unless RS more commonly use it. (In fact, only one of the several sources now cited in the section appears to describe this as a conflation.) The edits removed some more nuanced information that was DUE, including the group's denial in the Guardian that it was conflating, experts' response to that denial, and the number of antisemitic incidents the ADL said had occurred. There is some repetition, and two quotations are still longer than necessary. Do any other editors agree with Makeandtoss that these edits were improvements? Llll5032 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is time to make changes to the edits discussed above, per WP:VOICE, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:ONUS, but I will wait another two days for editors besides Makeandtoss and myself to comment. Llll5032 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP, the Guardian is a highly reliable source and does not require attribution unless in cases of quotation. Nevertheless, the Guardian has been attributed almost in all cases.

In addition, I have added one more recent article by The Nation, which has gone as far as describing the ADL as "Israel's attack dog in the US," which is quite a scathing criticism coming from a highly reliable source. While inserting the new information in the article, it became apparent to me that criticism of the ADL has been watered down everywhere (probably because ADL staff previously edited the article until they were exposed and prevented from doing so). What I have added is a fraction of what should be done to accurately reflect RS.

The ADL is highly controversial, and this is not my opinion, this is the position of highly reliable sources. This is definitely due weight. I have already refuted your points, so I will leave this discussion for other editors to jump into. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The article you added from The Nation also does not use the words conflate or conflation. So now, only one source out of eight in a section called "Conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism" even uses the word to describe any aspect of the section. Llll5032 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

“The ADL’s priority today remains—as it has for decades—going after Americans who are simply opposed to Israel’s endless occupation and oppression of Palestinians. The group’s preferred targets are students, professors, activists, and demonstrators—rather than antisemites, especially those on the far right.” It’s clearly the same idea so it belongs in this section and other parts in it are relevant to other sections. This article alone has numerous information, I barely used three sentences in it. Criticism of the ADL has been completely watered down. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It is DUE for the article to include opinionated RS such as the Nation (WP:RSP notes that the Nation should be attributed, so it generally does not go in Wikivoice). But to conflate 7 of 8 sources that don't use your heading's phrasing is a WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:VOICE problem, and may run afoul of WP:SYNTH too. Would any other editors care to defend it? Llll5032 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Nation source is an article and not an opinion article. And its statement about the ADL being Israel's attack dog is attributed. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what possible reason there could be to censor the Guardian of all things in the context. This is an extremely main line RSP, so yes, 11 sentences and even more can be supported by it – though the content in this edit involves far less monotonous sourcing than this thread might imply. The citations are spread across a lot of other material, so actually it just looks like normal, good editing and sourcing. I hope there was a better reason that just "too much Guardian" provided in the original revert/removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing 11 (now 9) sentences to one source, and no other source, stretches proportion even for a GREL source. But no one reverted all the content or "censored". Rather, the conflicts were about overquoting, synthesis, and widespread close paraphrasing that needed to be edited. Discussions are in this talk section, the Reversions discussion, and the edit summaries. Llll5032 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors must be careful about WP:VOICE and WP:DUEWEIGHT in this section. I edited some of the VOICE problems. There is also overquoting from a single article in the Guardian that should be reduced; perhaps limiting quotations to a maximum of one sentence per cited RS would be a compromise, and following the rest of the article, most RS should receive no quotations besides perhaps a few words. Also, per the emphasis of the sources, some of the information about the war should be returned to the History chronology instead of being in this section. Llll5032 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Thanks for pointing the WP:HEADLINES guideline, which I did not know about. But why did you remove? [30]

1- the reason why ADL staffers quit

2- the context of how ADL continued to pursue these controversial policies despite increasing internal dissent

Knowingly that the Guardian is a reliable source that does not require attribution per WP? We have already discussed this on the talk page, and for you to suddenly backtrack on it months later is not a good sign of constructive editing behavior. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the guideline, Makeandtoss.

The Guardian article did not say the employees quit because of "mainly the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism", the wording you used in the article, but rather "in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began". So we must WP:STICKTOSOURCE and, if citing a reason, use only the specific reason that the Guardian named for the resignations, per WP:SNYTH: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Other redundant wording I removed, which was less than what I disputed last month, contained no extra information but rather narrative commentary discouraged by WP:VOICE.

No other editor supported your warred-in edits to this section in January and February. Per WP:ONUS I could have removed more of your edits then, but I did not in hopes that a consensus among more editors could be reached on this talk page. There is no "backtrack", so please stop casting aspersions. Llll5032 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: If that was the case, then why didn't you simply replace the conflation comment with the over emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy, instead of just fully decontextualizing the paragraph? And why did you also decontextualize the following paragraph which was talking about how ADL continued to advance its controversial policies despite increasing internal dissent, which was the focus of the Guardian article? If narrative commentary was your concern, then why didn't you simply add the Guardian as attribution, which is a RS and doesn't require attribution anyway? I think these arguments do not support wholesale removal like you did, and is indicative of backtracking from our discussions here as these points have already been made. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The part of the sentence that I left intact is the part that mentions the pro-Israel advocacy, because the Guardian article said it. After my edit, the sentence says, "As of early 2024, two ADL staff quit the group in response to pro-Israel advocacy during the war." Although I believe it is disproportionate to cite only this source and no other sources for nine sentences, I removed no encyclopedic information from it in the edit, only some synthesis and narrative repetition. Please do not leave the impression that I made any edits that I did not make. Llll5032 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Just noticed that the pro-Israel advocacy part was left intact; but you still removed the information on how the ADL continued its controversial work despite increasing internal dissent. You could have at least kept that part and attributed it to the Guardian; even though WP clearly does not require attribution for this high quality RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: Please restore the context of advancing this work despite increasing internal dissent which is stated clearly in the Guardian article. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, you "Just noticed that the pro-Israel advocacy part was left intact", after you again used this talk page to insinuate, wrongly, that I made an edit that I did not make. Time-consuming aspersions and straw man arguments distract from constructive discussions about this article. Please strike your latest accusation and check yourself before making accusations.

Regarding your question: As I suggested before, I removed the other clause not only because of the synthesis involving "conflation", but also because repetition can violate neutrality even if it summarizes a RS. Removing that clause cut none of the information, only narrative repetition. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Llll5032 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032: I skim through long texts as I come across dozens of articles everyday, so it is inevitable to make mistakes. I am not asking about the conflation part, I am asking about the content that ADL continued its policies despite increasing internal dissent, why did you remove that? And why not add the Guardian as attribution as a solution, while stressing that this RS doesn't need one? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the dissent is already mentioned in the sentences prior in the article, we don't repeat for narrative purposes from a source that is already the only citation in 9 sentences. I agree that "it is inevitable to make mistakes", so please assume good faith and slow down before characterizing what other editors do, and ask careful questions that lead to consensus instead. Please also strike the aspersions in this section, which you have not yet done. Llll5032 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)