Talk:Anti-Defamation League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Leo Frank (accused or convicted?)[edit]

Leo Frank was indicted for murdering Mary Phagan by a grand jury with 4 Jewish members on May 24, 1913, and he was convicted of this crime on August 26, 1913. The ADL was founded in October 1913, after Leo Frank was convicted. Two years of appeals upheld the conviction of LF.Carmelmount (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Frank's death sentence was commuted ostensibly due to doubts about whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. But he was not pardoned - the death sentence was replaced with a life sentence. The fact that Governor Slaton was a law partner of Frank's lead defense counsel should be mentioned - that was an obvious conflict of interest that was hugely controversial at the time.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ADL New Jersey[edit]

I've moved this confusing (and recently changed) paragraph to the Talk: page for discussion:

Arab and Muslim groups are often critical of the ADL as well. One such criticism was made in response to the New Jersey chapter of the ADL deeming "troubling" the presence of Bret Schundler, then one of the New Jersey mayoral candidates, at a meeting of the American Muslim Political Coordinating Councill, due to the group's leaders' unspecified comments regarding Israeli policies. The group accused the ADL of "anti-Muslim McCarthyism".[1][2]

Apparently twenty years ago there was a gubernatorial race in New Jersey in which there was some sort of dust-up between the candidates related somehow to Muslims and Israel. However, it's not clear to me exactly what it was. The New York Times article linked in the section describes something that doesn't really match this paragraph, especially since material cited from the Times article was removed. Here's what the Times has to say about this race and the ADL's involvement:

In the midst of the argument, the Anti-Defamation League urged the candidates to calm down. There are many other issues that are more urgent, said Shai Goldstein, the league's New Jersey director. We do not believe it needs to be or should be a central issue of the campaign.

Mr. Goldstein called on each candidate to meet with Muslim leaders and voters, calling them a crucial and constructive part of the American mosaic.

At the same time, Mr. Goldstein criticized the American Muslim Alliance because it had not denounced militant Islamic groups in the Middle East, like Hezbollah and Hamas.

I get none of this from the current paragraph - in fact, I'm finding it very difficult to reconcile what is going on here. Furthermore, I'm not sure I understand why we are even mentioning a twenty year old state governor race and some minor dustup related to a local chapter of the ADL. Can anyone help explain? Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I don't understand what this paragraph is recording or why it's here. It seems to be a minor local incident. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The story was already there before my edition. How it looked like before:

Arab and Muslim groups are often critical of the ADL as well. After the ADL became involved in a dispute between two New Jersey mayoral candidates, one of whom had made a campaign speech at a meeting of an organisation whose president had called for "armed resistance" against Israel, asking the candidates to calm down, the group accused the ADL of "anti-Muslim McCarthyism".

What I conclude from excerpt, is that a Muslim group was angered at ADL for telling the candidates to "calm down". That can't be the reason for the clash, and the New York Times story didn't state anywhere why the AMPCC blasted the ADL. My edit was made mainly to point that out -- to point out that the group hurled the anti-Muslim McCarthyism accusation at the ADL on account of its reaction to the meeting it had with Bret Schundler. I find the story relevant -- media commentary has given some attention to the ADL's relationship with Muslims and Muslim groups. In any event, I don't really care whether the paragraph is reinstated or not, but if it is, then the reason for the friction between the ADL and the AMCC should be made clear, not hidden, as in the original paragraph. Guinsberg (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The New York Times article specifically mentioned "...an expression of support by the national president, Agha Saeed, for the right of Palestinians to use armed resistance against Israelis", and also specifically stated the ADL asked the candidates to "calm down". In fact, the Times comments about the ADL were mostly about the ADL trying to calm down a dispute, and speaking positively of Muslims, trying to get the candidates to work with them. You removed all that, and instead said the ADL chapter's issue was about "unspecified comments regarding Israeli policies", something I don't find anywhere in the Times article. I'm still not sure I fully understand what went on 20 years ago in New Jersey, but your presentation of it appeared highly distorted at best. In any event, given both the confusion about what happened, and the local and trivial nature of the "incident", I don't see why it would belong in the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Breath, Jayjg. Breath and read the other source. The New York Times did say the Muslim group caused controversy over support for armed resistence, when it made a donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign. I don't know what role that statement played in the New Jersey controversy, but the other reference -- which was already there before my edit -- said that controversy arose from unspecified comments challenging Israeli policies. It could be other statements than those noted by the NYT, couldn't it? In any event, the anti-McCarthyism accusation was a response to the ADL objection to the meeting, not to ADL calls for candidates to "calm down" -- a fact that the original paragraph hid and that you don't seem to grasp very well. From our previous interaction I know you have some difficulties reading sources you don't agree with, but it's not so hard to see what my argument is. If you want to reinstate the paragraph and note that AMPCC has supported armed resistence against Israel, so be it. Just don't forget to report what elicited the group's reaction to the ADL. Guinsberg (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Statements like "I know you have some difficulties reading sources you don't agree with" are personal attacks; you know nothing about me, including which sources I "agree with", or which I have "difficulty reading", and I am not the subject of this article. WP:NPA is very clear: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I'll do you the favor of ignoring your comment; if you can make a policy-compliant one, I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything to respond to. As I said before, if you want to reinstate the article, go there. If you think AMCC's "anti-Israel" comments should be reported on the entry so as to give context for the ADL's concerns, I won't object to their inclusion. But the entry shouldn't omit the reason AMCC clashed with the ADL -- because the ADL didn't like the fact that a candidate for the New Jersey government met with the AMCC. As for commenting on the editors, you learn something from that recommendation yourself. I'm not the one accusing other editors of distortions on their pages, and then refusing them the right to an answer. Guinsberg (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Individuals" subsection of Criticism section[edit]

The entire subsection has just been removed by PlotSpoiler under the following justification: "removing editorializing. not what source says. simply questions why Moon has gone "unnoticed" by ADL". I don't cease to get surprised at the ability of certain editors to find fault at old paragraphs -- curiously only the critical ones -- whenever new content is added. I of course want arguments for the section's removal, and if at the end the it is not inserted, I'll try to insert my edit, about criticism made by M. Blumenthal on the ADL's relationship with certain Christian Zionists, elsewhere. Reference was RS and I know that my summary of his critiques was a fair one. Guinsberg (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They were actually two edits. And please WP:AGF. The specific reasons for the removal of each criticism:
  • Chomsky: I thought Necessary Illusions was an WP:SPS but it's actually not. Should be restored.
  • Lerner: Tikkun is not a WP:RS
  • Finkelstein: Deadlink, not WP:RS [1]
  • Isaacs: Deadlink [2]
  • Wanniski: Another deadlink [3]
  • Blankfort, Poirier, Steve Zeltzer: Counterpunch is not a WP:RS [4]
  • Blumenthal is more or less a WP:Fringe figure publishing his opinion in HuffPo. Wikipedia seeks more objective judgments [5]
  • Gorenfeld: Source is misrepresented [6] Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
From what I see, WP:Fringe applies to ideas, not figures. The critique I inserted into the entry, that of Blumenthal, isn't fringe, and his opinion was published on an RS. What you seem to imply is that any criticism of the ADL's cozy ties with some allegedly anti-Semitic figures such as John Hagee should be seen as a fringe idea, and thus unfit for Wikipedia: but the burden is on you to show that this is the case. Blumenthal's opinion -- that Foxman and ADL forgave Hagee's 'anti-Semitic' statements on account of his pro-Israeli positions -- has been echoed elsewhere: Ali Abunimah's also attacked Foxman's relationship with Hagee, albeit on different grounds; and some Jewish writers have opined that the ADL is indeed willing to disregard expressions of anti-Semitism if they come from pro-Israel figures, both in the context of the Hagee thing and in others. See this too; and this; and though this article is less critical of the ADL's friendship with Hagee, it does notice that many Jews have stepped forward to accuse Christian Zionists such as Hagee of anti-Semitism. This usage (yours) of WP:Fringe can easily degenerate to justify removal of any criticism of ADL. I won't reinstate Blumenthal's comments for now, as I suspect there's a trap to lure me into "edit warring" to enable requests that I be banned from working on this article. For now I'll be waiting that consensus emerge from more commenters.Guinsberg (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Various anti-Zionist writers dislike the ADL. I'm not sure how that makes their views particularly notable. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That, according to yourself, there are "various" writers who are critical of ADL's activism, is even more reason for the entry to include their opinions. Doesn't Wikipedia strive to give space to many views, in accordance to their prominence? Criticism of the UN, criticism of American foreign policy, Bush_Doctrine#Criticism_and_analysis are there exactly because many have made arguments against those targets. I can't see why the opposite principle should be applied on this entry. Moreover, not all of the sources I have adduced are anti-Zionist. For example, JewishPost.com states that many within the Jewish community are uncomfortable with the welcoming, by Jewish groups, of support from some Christian Zionists, many of whom -- it singles out Hagee in this context -- have been accused of anti-Semitism. And of course: the only cricism I inserted on that subsection, Blumenthal's, was on topic and on an RS. There's no reason it should be removed. Subjective or invented measures of notability aren't acceptable to bar RS content from Wikipedia. Guinsberg (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So are you arguing only for the restoration of the Blumenthal material? And are you further arguing that Max Blumenthal is a notable critic of the ADL? That this opinion piece on the Huffington Post website, which criticizes Abe Foxman (and various others), is a notable criticism of the ADL? Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Blumenthal's criticism was on an RS and relevant to the subject at hand. That's enough reason for the noncentroversial inclusion of the material. You don't get to define what is, or is not, notable criticism, or who is, or isn't, a notable critic. In the previous debate you also tried to pull this same argument against the inclusion of HaCohen's criticism on the entry, and the only reason that attempt succeeded was because antiwar.com isn't RS. Huffington Post is. Yours and Plot Spoiler's constant search of different policies -- RS, BLP, notability, Fringe --, which you interpret superficially to block content, constitutes Wikipedia:PS.
PS - I will be re-inserting Chumsky's criticism again as Plot Spoiler has recognized his justification for its removal isn't legitimate.Guinsberg (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Blumenthal's criticism was on a marginally reliable source, but, as explained before regarding HaCohen, and as is still true regarding Blumenthal, "relevance" itself is a necessary condition for inclusion in an article, but not a sufficient one. There are many other hurdles material must overcome for inclusion, such as WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The first of these is particularly relevant here:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Please note that the quotation above is not my own opinion, but Wikipedia policy, which I am quoting. Saying the material is relevant is not enough: you must still explain why Wikipedia cares what Blumenthal's opinions are on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Blumenthal's critique was shortened to a single sentence in the Criticism section: there's no way it can be objectively argued that undue weight was given to his contention, which, I repeat, has been made elsewhere. If a single sentence constitutes undue weight, then what would be due weight? no criticism altogether? BLP doesn't apply either, and to paraphrase another user in a previous debate, "Blumenthal is entitled to his opinions just like Gerald M. Steinberg, whose outspoken views are often included when they are published by RS". Moreover, Blumenthal's critique is good enough for Wikipedia, not only because HP is RS, but also because his objections against ADL -- that it is foremost a pro-Israel group and that it is thus willing to forgive expressions of anti-Semitism if they come from pro-Israel figures -- is one of the most commonly made against the group, as the many links I posted above have already shown. I'm unconvinced by this obvious attempt at policy shopping of yours. Guinsberg (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't actually respond to mine; that is, it doesn't state why Blumenthal's comments would be notable. Specifically, you didn't respond to the questions are you further arguing that Max Blumenthal is a notable critic of the ADL? That this opinion piece on the Huffington Post website, which criticizes Abe Foxman (and various others), is a notable criticism of the ADL? If a criticism on some website is not notable, then having no article space devoted to it is the proper solution. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Isaacs, Wanniski and Blumenthal have all been restored. Links for Isaacs and Wanniski have been fixed. Blumenthal was removed under allegations of WP:Fringe, but Plot Spoiler has not appeared to defend his "argument". As for Jayjg's objections against Blumenthal — BLP, DUE, notability —, they are not only feeble, but they also violate WP:PS. Jayjig's trying to guard one of the net results of Plot_Spiler's latest edit — the suppression of a reference to Blumenthal's article — for different reasons than the one cited by the editor who removed it, and he does that by adducing a new justification with each new post of his: "Policy shopping is the attempt to force a change in Wikipedia content by attempting to incrementally apply different policies to effect the same net result (i.e., if this attempt fails, find another way to try to force the same change). When presenting a proposed change, it is always best to present all of the reasons for that change at one time. Policy shopping may be indicative of an ulterior motive and associated with the advancement of a particular agenda." Guinsberg (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comment was about me again, not about article content, so it's both a violation of WP:NPA, and not a valid reason for making an edit. Moreover it was irrelevant; I'm not Plot Spoiler, and my reasons are my own. I'm under no obligation to use his reasons for anything. Please make a relevant, policy-based justification for this edit - and one which in no way refers to any other editors. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Blumenthal's article is a fringe, BLP-violating slander piece that I would argue disqualifies it as an RS. There is no pretense of objectivity or balanced argument, which is evident simply by the title ("AIPAC Cheers an Anti-Semitic Holocaust Revisionist (and Abe Foxman Approves)"). Secondly, the article really isn't even a crique of ADL but Foxman himself. Overall, I think we need to find a more balanced critique, rather than an admitted anti-Israel advocate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The Chomsky critique also makes no pretense of objectivity or a balanced argument, but perhaps the difference is in both the reliability of the source, and the fact that Chomsky is an extremely well-known anti-Zionist activist. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. My posts have responded to you argumentns perfectly well. Blumenthal's article is on topic and on an RS. It thus fits in the entry. I'll not debate subjective or invented criterium of notability to bar inclusion of material authored by him. He also deserves mention as his criticism has very been voiced by prominent figures (e..g, Pete McCloskey) and other media outlets, including some that are directed to Jewish audiences. His charges against ADL are everything but fringe. Moreover, charges of DUE are at the very least subjective as material referencing his article took but a very small portion of the article. Jayjg also tried to pull that same argument against inclusion Ran HaCohen's views on Abraham Foxman as ADL president -- that HaCohen isn't a notable critic --, but as seen above, the only factor that stood on the way of their inclusion was antiwar.com status as non-WP:RS: an argument that doesn't apply against Blumenthal.
  2. None of my posts have been about you — they are about your reasoning. Plot Spoiler removed Blumenthal's reference on feeble grounds; he didn't return to defend them before. You didn't defend his use of WP:Fringe either; you instead proceeded to adduce every other wikisin imaginable to justify his edit, and everytime I responded to one charge you cited another. A clear case of WP:PS.
  3. Plot Spoiler has finally appeared to defend his edits, though this time, carefully changing his argument — he now accuses Blumenthal's article, rather than Blumenthal himself, of being fringe. However, WP:Fringe doesn't support his case, and Blumenthal's criticism, I repeat, is not fringe, as anyone who reads WP:Fringe's definition can see.
  4. Your BLP charges are subjective and I don't accept them.
  5. As Plot Spoiler's removed my small edit on the "Relationship with Arabs and Muslims", another criticism found in a reliable source, it's increasingly clear to me you both are working to remove any criticism against ADL bit by bit. As neither of you want to accept any of my arguments, but instead keep repeating the same claptrap after my answers, which you never address, I'll be calling for mediation.Guinsberg (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your comment again referred to other editors (e.g. "Jayjg also tried to pull that same argument"). I have been very, very clear - ad hominem arguments are not acceptable, and any comments you make that refer to other editors will be ignored. As I've stated previously, if you make a comment that in no way refers to other editors, then I will respond. It shouldn't be hard; discuss sources and content, nothing else. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My post is entirely about edits and discussions taking place on the Talk Page. But no matter. It's clear that to keep debating will bear no results. Hopefully moderation will be on its way. Guinsberg (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems you are a bit confused, Jayjg. Chomsky is one of the most widely-quoted living intellectuals today. He is also severely critical of "anti-Zionism", considering himself a supporter of Israel and its right to exist. -asad (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems you began your comment with a comment about me, so I didn't read further. Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, very clever. Now, if you would like to continue the discussion you can read the second part as it will give relevance to the first part. You said something about the presumed individual that is so outrageously false that it has led me to believe you are speaking about someone else. Per WP:AGF, "It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." -asad (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure your comments were made in good faith, but they nevertheless violated policy (specifically WP:NPA), so there's no point in reading that comment, as stated above. Are there any changes you are proposing to this article's content? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
My comment was a response to your presumed desire to remove Chomsky from the individuals. Is that what you are proposing? -asad (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't propose that. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The controversial relationship between Hagee and the ADL has been the subject of an article by Time Magazine and has been discussed in many other places. Certainly seems worthy of a mention here, including any criticism of that relationship.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why then are editors so insistent on using poor sources for it instead? Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think there was any poor sourcing involved. Citing a criticism and attributing it to the person making the criticism is doing exactly what WP:NPOV and WP:RS demands of editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here because Guinsberg asked me if I could help mediate this dispute a little. The tension here is unnecessary and tends to surface when editors make comments about Jayjg and not the subject matter. That should stop immediately so we could move forward smoothly. I really don't see why the criticism of Hagee's relationship with the ADL and/or its head shouldn't be mentioned. If sourcing was an issue then The Devil's Advocate seems to have solved that by finding alternative sources although The Huffington Post seems reliable enough. I think the part about Blumethal's criticism should remain the same, while Abunima's criticism is a bit tricky. In the article, Abunima specifically refers to Foxman's relationship with Hagee and Hagee's tirades against Islam. He also quotes Foxman saying "I don't have to agree with anybody 100 per cent in order to welcome their support, as long as their support is not conditioned on my agreeing with them on everything" as well as Foxman's apparent condemnation of Islamophobia following the recent Norway attacks. Abunima's only direct criticism of the ADL was regarding their opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. Maybe we could shorten the old bit in the article about his criticism to something along these lines: Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah has also criticized the ADL and particularly Foxman's relationship with Hagee, accusing Foxman of embracing Hagee and tolerating his alleged exploitation of post-9/11 Islamophobia in order to shore up support for Israel. It could probably use better wording though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously the sourcing was a problem, when the best people could come up with was personal opinions posted by activists on websites. And frankly, is it really significant that Ali Abunimah, the founder of The Electronic Intifada, would be critical of the ADL? You know what would be interesting? If Ali Abunimah, or in fact Al Jazeerah itself, ever published something non-critical about the ADL, or indeed any other organization they considered to be "Zionist" or "pro-Israel". That would be notable. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. So are you saying that a stance, a critique, an assessment is only "notable" if it is unexpected? that, for instance, an opinion piece published on AJE about the IP conflict can only be notable for Wikipedia if it is supportive of Israel's actions? This is so preposterous, that it isn't even worth debating — this can be refuted just by taking a quick glance over other entries, from which we conclude that the notability criterium that Jayjg mentions, supposing it exists, has been widely ignored on Wikipedia. Viewpoints from the ADL, from other Jewish/pro-Israel activist groups, or newspapers, have been included in Wikipedia entries even when they present content that would be nothing other than what would be expected of them. For instance, on the USS Liberty controversy, editors mentioned and referenced ADL's views -- that Israel didn't know the vessel was American when she attacked it -- even though this is just what one would've expected from the group (and to be clear, by that I don't mean to imply something negative about the ADL). Likewise, the entry for The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy book includes criticism -- expected criticism -- by ADL activists. And the Gaza War entry mentions an opinion piece on the Jerusalem Post according to which the civilian body count of the event has been exaggerated -- even though this is just what one would expect from the Jerusalem Post. And on an entry about criticism against a group that often denounces Israeli actions, editors have also linked to criticism by Jerusalem Post columnists, even though it would surpise no one that a writer from that paper would say something negative against such groups. This is widely practiced throughout Wikipedia on a variety of subjects. Opinions from activists, activist/political groups, lobbies, intellectuals, journalists, etc., are considered notable for Wikipedia even when they take their usual positions regarding matters in discussion. Blumenthal, Abunimah, or AJE, don't have to speak out in favour of the ADL, or Israel, or related entities, in order to be notable for Wikipedia.
  2. Other users have taken the position that it is not a violation of NPOV or RS to cite criticism, if it is attributed to an author, and not made to appear as a fact: which is exactly what I did. You haven't given your answer on that yet, even though you keep insisting, without offering arguments, on the opinion that sourcing was a problem.
Guinsberg (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You haven't given your answer on that yet, even though you keep insisting, without offering arguments, on the opinion that sourcing was a problem = comment about an editor. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that the notability of the individual determines the notability of the criticism. Obviously Abunimah is a notable individual so his criticism is just as worthy of mentioning as Chomsky's.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, my points here are:
  1. The opinions of an individual activist, published on a marginally reliable website, is the weakest kind of source one could even entertain using.
  2. The opinions of an individual activist are in no way comparable to the published positions of, say, a 100-year-old human rights organization.
  3. Publishing the entirely predictable opinions of activists does not in any way actually "criticize" the ADL. The actual effect is generally the opposite of the intended one, because these ritual denunciations are generally dismissed for what they are.
Is there no way of finding better sourced, more encyclopedic, interesting, and intellectually engaging criticism? Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. The Huffington Post and Al Jazeera's opinion piece are widely employed as sources for opinions, critical or not, about a variety of subjects in Wikipedia entries. Your assertion that they are "marginally reliable" and a "weak[] source" for this one seems to be inherently POV. Our questions and answers should all come down to this: Does any of Wikipedia guidelines, such as NPOV and RS, weaken the case for the inclusion of Blumenthal's and Abunimah's views? What we think of the sources -- that they are "interesting", "intellectually engaging", or not -- shouldn't be part of the discussion. That one can question the quality of Abunimah's or Blumenthal's argument, shouldn't be reason to exclude their views from the entry, though, you should add other criticism that you think is better fitting for the article, if you find it.
  2. That we're discussing the inclusion of Abunimah's and Blumenthal's views doesn't mean we're measuring their popularity or public credibility against the ADL's 100 years of existence.
  3. It's not up to editors to include, or exclude, material based on its content's perceived effectiveness. Whether readers of the entry would think Blumenthal's criticisms against the ADL are efficient, can say something about their own ideological background or Blumenthal's ability as a thinker or a writer -- but it says nothing on whether his views should be included in the article. The entry for The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy book mentions many reactions to the work from pro-Israel groups (such as the ADL and AIPAC) or their members -- and as expected, they are mostly negative. Their predictability may offset their efficiency in persuading at least parts of the public, but editors haven't, as they shouldn't have, ignored their statements on the matter. Activists or political groups are often cited as sources for opinions even when they bring forth views that are expected and predictable. Guinsberg (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
None of your arguments, sophistry = comments about about an editor. When I finally see a comment that is only about article content, and does not comment in any way about other editors, I respond to it, as I have above. It's unclear to me why it would be difficult to make such comments. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment has been edited. I apologize. I've also expanded on some points. Please read it again. Guinsberg (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for editing your post. Responding to your points in order:
  1. The Huffington Post is a combination website/group blog/news aggregator, with a particular ideological bent. As such, it is on the low end of what Wikipedia might consider to be a reliable source. In addition, the articles in question were opinion pieces - WP:RS points out that these aren't really considered reliable for statements of fact, but merely represent the opinions of the authors - again, at the lower end of reliability. So indeed, WP:RS does indicate that we are dealing with weak material here, and should therefore be cautious about including it. In addition, WP:UNDUE is clear that significant viewpoints must be covered in an article, which leads inevitably to a discussion of what significant means. In Wikipedia terms, it generally means multiple high-quality secondary sources discuss an issue. If all that can be produced on a specific issue is an opinion piece (or two) from an activist, then we have likely not yet met the bar of WP:UNDUE.
  2. Comparisons were made between including the ADL's opinions on topics in some article, and including Blumenthal's and Abunimah's in other - specifically, the idea was advanced that they were somehow equivalent activities. My point was that in fact, they were not, and could not be, because the published positions of a 100-year-old international human rights organization are not the equivalent of the personal opinions of individual activists.
  3. It is absolutely up to editors to make editorial decisions about the content of articles, including which material, sources, etc. most effectively make the points that should be made in the article. To make an extreme analogy (for the purpose of making this point clear), if one were to fill the "criticism" section of this article with statements by David Duke, David Irving, and Michael A. Hoffman II, it would be doing a disservice to the reader. Duke, Irving, and Hoffman are all certainly "notable" by Wikipedia standards - they have often very lengthy articles about them - and they have many ardent supporters, but nevertheless their credibility on these topics amongst most readers is minimal, and including them would not actually improve the article. While Blumenthal and Abunimeh are not Holocaust deniers like Duke, Irving or Hoffman, the point is that repeating the well-known positions of activists with publicly stated political views is actually not particularly helpful - one should strive to get more neutral sources, published in higher quality venues.
I hope that makes my position more clear. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think the ADL being around for a hundred years means it has any added credibility, nor does a criticism coming from an individual activist somehow lack credibility just because it is expected. The notability of the group or individual offering the opinion is what matters. So long as it is clearly attributed I see no reason why it should be a problem. Notable views on a subject are perfectly acceptable to include in an article so long as they are clearly attributed to the people espousing those views.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note points two and three in the comment immediately above, where I address these issues. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I can see you did not give an adequate response to either issue, instead just repeating what you already said. That you basically Godwinned the discussion doesn't help. There are very good reasons to not include the opinions of neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers here that have nothing to do with their positions being predictable. We do not have those same issues with Blumenthal or Abunimeh. The 100-years comment really just strikes me as an emotive appeal to authority. Being around for a long time does not somehow make the views of the ADL more worthy of consideration than an individual who criticizes them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I would also add that the points Jayjg raised against the HP -- that it has an ideological bent, that it's of questionable reliability as a source of facts -- would be stronger if Blumenthal's column had been used as a reference for facts about the ADL: instead it was used as source of opinions on the group. That the HP is said to be only marginally reliable on facts, shouldn't be reason against inclusion in Wikipedia entries of opinion published on its website, as long as said opinion isn't made to appear as anything other than that. As for Duke, Irving, and others of their ilk: their lack of credibility regarding these subjects -- subjects making any sort of reference to ethnicity -- come from their taking racialist positions far outside what's acceptable for the mainstream discourse. (Still their views are sometimes included in Wikipedia entries; cf. the entry for "Israel lobby" book.) Of course, a different set of beliefs informs Blumenthal's opinions of the ADL. (He is, after all, a left-winger and of Jewish ancestry.) In any event, a more fitting comparison involving Blumenthal and Abunimah -- pro-Palestinian writers and activists who write criticism against pro-Israel figures, groups, books, etc. -- would be pro-Israel writers and activists criticizing pro-Palestinian figures, groups, or works. And as said above, such pro-Israel opinions, predictable as they often are, have been taken into account in many Wikipedia entries on Israel/Palestine subjects. And if their inclusion is not deemed a disservice to the reader, why would insertion of Blumenthal's or Abunimah's views be? Likewise, one can find, in Wikipedia articles about liberal politicians, criticism by churches or conservative activists; or, in articles about religious figures or conservative politicians, criticism by feminist or gay groups. That, very often, those opinions are entirely predictable, considering their authors' political inclinations, hasn't precluded their inclusion in Wikipedia. And to repeat a previous point, I still think any discussion on the suitability of sources for this entry should have only Wikipedia policies as references -- they're the only editorial guidelines whose validity users are, or should be, in common agreement. Jayjg's objections to Blumenthal's and Abunimah's articles strike me as being based on his own stylistic preferences, instead of objective, commonly agreed rules. Guinsberg (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
TDA, stating that I "did not give an adequate response to either issue" is not the same thing as demonstrating it, and this has yet to be done. In addition, your response has failed to address the salient points of both of my comments, regarding WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, opinion pieces etc. In order to justify including material, you must still actually do so, rather than assuming material goes into an article by default. Finally, noting the fundamental difference between the opinions of an individual activist, posted on a website, and the published positions of a 100-year-old international human rights organization is not an "emotive appeal to authority", and does indeed indicate that the views of the latter are far more significant and noteworthy. As another analogy, the published positions of Human Rights Watch are inevitably going to be more significant and noteworthy and the bloggings of political activist X.
Guinsberg, the fact that something is an opinion piece indicates that it is at the lower end of reliability, and therefore should be scrutinized more closely before use. This is true - policy is clear on this - and has not yet been addressed. The fact that we possibly can quote someone's opinion in no way means that we should do so. We still do not have a case made for why we should quote Blumenthal or Abunimah; vague hand-waving about other articles that, in theory, may be doing similar things, are simply not relevant to why we should quote in this article a specific individual who posts his opinion on a specific website. And regarding "mainstream discourse", if Blumenthal's and Abunimah's opinions on this topic are indeed "mainstream" enough to quote on this topic, then that would indicate that mainstream sources have raised these issues too. Where are those mainstream sources? And finally, the last sentence of your comment was again about me (Jayjg's objections to Blumenthal's and Abunimah's articles strike me as being based on his own stylistic preferences etc.). Because I had already written this response and had an edit conflict, I will leave in my response, but keep in mind that if you post any future comments about other editors your comments will be ignored. This is the last time I will repeat it - please remove comments about editors from your comment above. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. That a published text advocates an opinion, doesn't mean it's at the lower end for reliability for opinion. By itself, the Criticism section can only be about impressions, perspectives, etc., on the subject: it's not about facts. Moreover, as WP:RS spells out, opinion is deemed reliable if it's attributed to an author and not made to appear as fact. In both cases, I was careful to notice, in compliance with both WP:NPOV and WP:RS, that Abunimah's and Blumenthal's views on the ADL were only that -- their opinions. Furthermore it has already been shown -- see also below -- that very similar points have been made elsewhere, thus adding to their notability. If you know other criteria that apply to this case -- ones that my attempt to include Abunimah's and Blumenthal's views has not respected -- be clearer on what are they. You say such criteria, on which "policy is clear", have "not yet been addressed": but that's because you haven't cited them.
  2. To repeat again a previous point, it's Wikipedia guidelines which should be used as reference as to what content should, or should not, be excluded from the entry. In my view, which I and other users have argued for, Abunimah's and Blumenthal's views had been represented on the entry properly -- I mean, "properly" as in "as demanded by Wikipedia guidelines". It's up to you to show that this is not so, to present reasons to keep their removal, based on Wikipedia policies. Points that adduce concerns beyond the guidelines' demands, are expected to be objected, to perhaps even be seen as subjective and disruptive. WP:TALK states:

    There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

  3. Both Al Jazeera English and Huffington Post are mainstream sources. So is the SF Weekly: as you can see on the entry, the SFW piece referenced contains criticism very similar to that made by Blumenthal. See also this TIME.com article, and the many Jewish sources that I adduced in the beginning of this debate: they all voice, in critical tone or not, the view that the ADL chose to downplay, or ignore, John Hagee's "anti-Semitic" comments on the grounds that he's strongly pro-Israel.
  4. Nothing on the post I made above was about you, and nothing on WP:FAITH justifies that interpretation. In fact, the page reads:

    If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

    Accusing you of acting maliciously is something I haven't done. But it's my sincere opinion that, of the points you've raised against insertion of Blumenthal's or Abunimah's views, none reflect Wikipedia guidelines. And Wikipedia policy doesn't prevent me from pointing that out, from criticizing editor's actions in this way. If you see such comments as reason enough to keep away from discussion, that's your own loss. But I'll keep arguing, if I think this is the case, that an editor's arguments go beyond what Wikipedia guidelines demand from users, as this is a legitimate argument.Guinsberg (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Guinsberg:
  1. When something is at the lower end of reliability, it's at the lower end of reliability for everything, including opinions. That's precisely why we can only ascribe opinions to low reliability sources, rather than citing them for facts.
  2. Material need not actively violate Wikipedia policy in order to be excluded from an article. Wikipedia editors are editors, and must make editorial decisions about what material to include and what not to include. Material that is possibly technically acceptable according to policy is quite often not included in articles, for many good reasons. As I've asked before, if "very similar points have been made elsewhere" by more reliable sources, then why not cite those sources instead? Why is it so critical to cite Abunimah and Blumenthal?
  3. Sources exist on a spectrum of reliability; websites like Huffington Post are at the lower end of that spectrum, particularly for opinion pieces. Again, if more reliable sources say similar things, then why must we cite less reliable ones instead?
  4. WP:NPA, Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy, explicitly states, as its second sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor". That's very, very clear, and it's repeated in WP:TPYES. "Criticism" of an editor's actions is fine in its place, which is not an article's talk page. There are many other venues for discussing editor behavior; this is not one of them. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
NPA comment is Excellent. Put it on my Cheet Sheet. Looks like a couple recent Wikiquette "discussions" took, including my whining about what I saw as personal attacks on the not really settled dispute/debate over whether posting to a particular Wikiproject was proper or canvassing. :-) CarolMooreDC 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not to get overly involved in an article I prefer not to edit currently, but I did do this google search of "criticized the anti-defamation league" and got some interesting returns from various individuals in case people want to do some more research for "more" notable individual critics. Also, I'm quite sure that individuals with similar notability/WP:RS (or lack thereof) would have been defended by some of the same editors if they were criticizing someone for antisemitism. Just another example of systematic bias in Wikipedia??? CarolMooreDC 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA, Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy, explicitly states, as its second sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor". WP:TPYES says the same. Please do not speculate about what "the same editors" might or might not have done in various other hypothetical circumstances. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked by Guinsberg to review this article and the discussion here. I believe some of Guinsberg's concerns are legitimate, but I think she/he needs to listen carefully to what Jayjg is saying about sources. If higher quality sources are available, make use of them! At the same time, I think Plot Spoiler is confused about the application of WP:IRS to expressions of opinion—see WP:RSOPINION.
Jayjg, may I quote you that criticism sections of articles should only include items of the "man bites dog" sort? Frankly, that would spare us all a lot of tsuris on many articles. Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In other words two or three barely WP:RS rehashes of slightly more WP:RS rehashes of WP:RS criticism should not be included in articles?? One of these days I'll get back to a certain naughty wicked ex-Israeli's article and clean up some of that nonsense. Where's that "man bites dog" quote? Thanks for the html: Face-smile.svg CarolMooreDC 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Malik, thanks for your comments. My point was really about good writing; if anti-X activist says something negative about X on some website, how does it really help the reader to know that? And yes, "man bites dog" material is definitely more interesting. Face-smile.svg Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Some web site or The Guardian or the New York Times or the Jerusalem Post or Ynet? And since few people are full time "anti-X" activists but only have anti-X opinions. Let's just say we are getting into extreme generalities here. The real issue is these specific people (or others who may yet be found) writing on this group. Seems we've strayed from that. Which does make it easy to NOT have to do the research and have an informed opinion specific to this article. CarolMooreDC 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for CarolMooreDC and Malik Shabazz for having weighed in on this debate (and please, stick around!). Finally there seems to have arrived a moment when Jayjg and I won't have to repeat the same arguments yet and again; finally it has arrived a moment where discussion seems to be approaching consensus, where it has narrowed down to fewer issues. First of all, Jayjg, I'd like to point out that that which I had said before of your arguments -- that they seemed to be more stylistic, more aesthetic in character --, you yourself have admitted now ("My point was really about good writing"). If, as says Malik Shabazz, we should pick better sources, instead of a website such as the Huffington Post, then there's no problem: The Devil's Advocate has already pointed out that there's a TIME.com article on the same subject that Blumenthal addressed. I think I can use it as a main source for the subject on the entry. Still, I don't see this as reason to exclude Blumenthal's article. As said before, debates on the Talk page have as their major aim to discuss the application of Wikipedia policies to entries' contents. And there's no objection from such policies against mentioning Blumenthal's article: the article is pertinent to the entry's subject (the ADL); plus, the way it was presented in the removed paragraph complies with WP:NPOV and WP:RS's demands, as said also by Al Ameer son and The Devil's Advocate: and this is reason enough to defend inclusion of that article into the entry. Demands that go beyond Wikipedia policies, aren't something to which editors are forced to heed. Also, I'm not aware of some WP:RS hierarchy whereby some reliable sources are deemed more or less disputable than others. I need to be enlightened of its existence. The other issue is Abunimah's article: nothing said on here can be used to justify its exclusion from the entry. There's no shade in Al Jazeera English's reliability as a source for both facts and opinions; it's a reputable news network. And I agree with CarolMooreDC's point: it may be very good if editors choose to impose upon themselves the man-bites-dog demand when a new entry or a new section is being created; but that is not a Wikipedia demand. It is not something that can be used to justify removal of content that complies with real demands. Jayjg said some days ago: "If Ali Abunimah, or in fact Al Jazeerah itself, ever published something non-critical about the ADL, or indeed any other organization they considered to be "Zionist" or "pro-Israel". That would be notable." If this is so, then what are ADL and AIPAC opinions doing on such entries as USS Liberty and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy? By the same token, statements by either of those two groups, or their members, can only be notable if they are pro-Palestine, or pro-Arab, or pro-Iran, or anti-Israel, or anti-interventionism. Opinion pieces from The Guardian should only be notable if they're favorable to David Cameron, or other Tories, or the wealthy, or the neocons. Fox News opinion columns are only good for Wikipedia if they are pro-Obama, or pro-unions, or pro-socialism. We all know, however, that this is not how Wikipedia works, in either theory or in practice. Guinsberg (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The issues I raised and continue to raise are manifold. Some of them related to the quality of the writing, others to the quality of the sources. The issue still unaddressed is a rather circular argument: The claim that Abunimeh's or Blumenthal's views are not WP:UNDUE is supported only by the claim that "many other reliable sources exist". However, when asked "why not use those sources, which are apparently more reliable", the response is "no need, we can use Abunimeh and Blumenthal". "But what about the issues raised regarding WP:UNDUE, opinion pieces etc.?" "Oh, no problem, lost of other reliable sources say the same thing"... If these more reliable sources exist, the please produce them, thus obviating any need to continue discussing whether or not Abunimeh and Blumenthal violate WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. Or to repeat my questions from yesterday, why is it so critical to cite Abunimah and Blumenthal? If more reliable sources say similar things, then why must we cite less reliable ones instead? These questions are crucial, and have yet to be answered. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
My previous arguments have already responded to those objections. The sources' quality can't be reason for the exclusion of those articles as they both are reliable. And the way those articles were presented comply with Wikipedia rules. This is reason enough to re-insert both articles: Talk page debate must have as basis Wikipedia policies. And if none of them object to the re-insertion of those articles, why such long debate about them ("My point was really about good writing")? If there's some criterion that relegates the HP to an inferior reliability level to that demanded by criticism such as Blumenthal's, it should be made explicit: I'm not aware of it. User:Al Ameer son and User:The Devil's Advocate have already said before that my use of the Huffington Post was proper, and the source is reliable. No argument against that has been produced. Besides, nothing that's been said about the Huffington Post -- supposing it is grounded on Wikipedia policies -- applies to Al Jazeera English: AJE has been a reliable source on Wikipedia for content much more critical, much more consequential, than Abunimah's written views about the ADL. What argument do we have to justify its removal? You shouldn't be conflating Abunimah's article with Blumenthal's; you shouldn't assume that your objections to the HP, no matter what merit they have, automatically apply to AJE. Moreover, my main argument against allegations of "undue weight" isn't that other sources -- sources that have already been brought in here, TIME.com, SFW.com -- have published similar allegations. The main argument is that such critiques didn't take disproportional space on the entry, and this in spite of their prominence, in spite of a wealth of other sources criticizing the ADL on similar grounds, proving those criticisms aren't confined to small numbers of writers or public figures: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." How did any of the removed paragraphs violate this principle? The entry as a whole is vastly larger than the paragraphs I wrote. The Abumimah paragraph, for instance, took only three lines in the section about relations with Muslim groups -- a section that had a total of 17 lines before its removal. As for your latest question: is there a WP:Critical, an an objective measure of "criticality", that justifies it, that supports removal of properly sourced contents under the reasoning, or allegation, that they are not critical? As said before, "the article[s] [are] pertinent to the entry's subject (the ADL)" and they comply with Wikipedia policies. That's, in my view, enough reason for their inclusion on the entry: that they are proper content. And I myself am not aware of policy that justifies exclusion of proper content. In any event, if there's a Wikipedia policy that opposes insertion of either Blumenthal's or Abunimah's views under any justification, please bring it up on here. Because more than once you've made the point that exclusion, or removal, of content can be made even if such content doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. But I'm not at all convinced this is so, and Wikipedia actually warns of discussion that isn't based on policy concerns. Guinsberg (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
To repeat
  1. Wikipedia editors are editors. Material does not need to explicitly violate policy to be excluded from an article; there are many other good editorial reasons why material is excluded from articles.
  2. The sources are weak at best, because they are opinion pieces published by activists on (in at least one case) a website that is at the low end of reliability itself. Reliability is a spectrum, and sources range from highly reliable to highly unreliable. Reliability is not a binary decision, and referring to sources as if they were is unhelpful and not in accord with Wikipedia's policies.
  3. Your "proof" that this material does not violate WP:UNDUE is your claim that better sources also refer to these matters. However, when told to use those better sources instead, you refuse to do so, instead insisting on these specific ones. Please review Malik's comments on this matter.
  4. The point about good writing was merely noting how boring and uninformative it was to read predictable statements by activists. That is, as already pointed out, only one reason of many why this material was inappropriate. It is unhelpful to continually respond as if this was the only point made, as opposed to just one of many.
  5. Whatever else is going on in this article is irrelevant to the discussion of this material. I didn't write the rest of the article, and I haven't evaluated it. The decision about this material is about this material alone, and the repeated mentions of other material in this article or other articles is irrelevant.
In summary, everything I have listed about is completely factual, as is the point that you have not yet dealt with even one of these points. Rather than repeating your own points, please address mine. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Finding better sources is always the best solution. Plus it makes it easier to go to WP:RSN if good ones are rejected. Perhaps one will find that the community also considers your original quotes/sources to be good too. Bringing possibly weak ones to WP:RS makes it easier to pick them off. Research is often best solution to back and forth. (Issue itself not of sufficient importance to me to research; but process if always of interest.) CarolMooreDC 02:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But one of the problems is that when sources that are perfectly fine, that are reliable and widely employed on other Wikipedia entries, nonetheless keep getting rejected for subjective reasons, for reasons that aren't the ones justified by Wikipedia policies. As said above, Al Jazeera English, for instance, is used on Wikipedia as a reference for news and facts much more sensitive than Abunimah's opinions of the ADL. What reason does one have, then, to say of an article of his published on AJE that it is of minor reliability? What reason, if all that the guide on reliability demands, in citing criticisms and general opinions, is that they be attributed to the person making the criticism, or stating the opinion, regardless of who that is? Guinsberg (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia editors are editors who create content having Wikipedia policy as a guideline. You have implicitly recognized throughout this discussion that the removed content violates none of such policies. This discussion should therefore have ended long ago, and insistence on making points that go beyond what Wikipedia requirements give base for, is itself violation of Wikipedia guidelines concerning discussion between editors:

    There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

    Please, address the above quote from WP:TALK in your next post.
  2. Where is it said that articles, on RSs, have reduced reliability when they are written by activists of activist groups? The sole requirement on WP:RSOPINION concerning this matter is that opinion must not be presented as fact, that it must be attributed to an individual or a group. And this sole requirement had been observed when I wrote the removed paragraphs. Demands beyond those of Wikipedia, I'm not forced to comply with. If you want me to heed to your arguments against Blumenthal and Abunimah, you must provide an objective for them -- in this case, an argument grounded, not on subjective criteria, but on objective, widely agreed-upon Wikipedia edition policies.
  3. My principal argument concerning WP:WEIGHT is that those paragraphs didn't violate that policy, as proven by the quote I took from the guideline. They didn't take space disproportional to their prominence: the Blumenthal reference took but one line, and the Abunimah one, less than one fifth of all the section on ADL relations with Muslim groups.
  4. It's not anyone's problem that one thinks it's boring to read criticism against the ADL. Wikipedia policies, the sole objective guideline on content edition, don't pose hurdles to the inclusion of this sort of material. In a certain level, I get you: I too think predictable, even baseless, certain things that I read: for instance, criticism of the ADL or AIPAC against Stephen Walt's works, criticisms that are entirely predictable and rather weak in substance but have nonetheless been included in Wikipedia entires (as they should, IMO). The same applies to negative opinions of activists of certain political background against public figures with opposite stances. But it's a Wikipedia aim to give a comprehensive coverage of the subjects addressed by the entries. And such criticisms are a part of the public debate that Wikipedia strives to portray, as stated on WP:WEIGHT. Criticisms against pro-Israeli groups, made by pro-Palestinian activists, are a part of the public debate on such groups. If released on reliable sources, if presented in a way that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy, there's no reason to exclude them from this website.
Other users who took part in this debate have all recognized that my concerns are legitemate and that content added was in compliance with rules. And anyone who reads the above points, and the many ones I have made before, can see your arguments have been addressed fairly: saying otherwise won't make it true. And please, in your next answer, be sure to debate Wikipedia policy and its application to this entry. Failing to do so is a misuse of the Talk page that I would have to bring to the attention of the Arbitration committee. Guinsberg (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is time to take to WP:RSN with bulleted explanation of why each is WP:RS/WP:NPOV/etc., correcting for any legitimate or strong counter arguments and leaving out the couple weakest examples. It would be easier for me and others to opine, or make sense of this section if they came to it. I certainly understand your frustration, though usually mine is the opposite with poorly sourced and/or redundant criticisms of alleged bigotry on BLP articles. So it was nice to see all these arguments I can use next time I want to counter same. CarolMooreDC 03:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not a WP:RSN issue. It's simply WP:Common sense that the worst partisans of whatever stripe (especially one's that aren't particularly notable) should not be used for sourcing in an encyclopedic article. No one is saying the Hagee issue should not be brought up - Blumenthal's opinion piece (a weak RS if at all) is simply not the optimal source given that other articles on the subject exist that are less partisan and more professional written. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously the strongest sources should be used. If Guinsberg is overly concerned with other editor's POVs on this article going to WP:RSN is one way he'll find out if he's wrong. It would help if he'd first present the updated bulleted list here first, of course. After all, the somewhat less WP:RS source can always be used as a back up to the stronger one, if a strong one is found. CarolMooreDC 04:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
On criticism against the link between the ADL and Hagee, a less controversial source has already been found: TIME.com. Besides, at the beginning of this debate I also linked to an article on a Jewish newspaper that recounts, in a tone that is even sympathetic to the ADL, that its friendship with Hagee disturbed even members of the Jewish community. The problem is that the existence of those references isn't a reason to justify exclusion of Blumenthal's article. (Jayjg himself admits to using extra-policy justifications to argue for its continued exclusion.) I have no problem in changing that paragraph to make Blumenthal's article an additional reference on the Hagee question, the TIME.com being the main one. But an exclusion of that article I won't accept. An administrator that commented in this debate before, User:Al Ameer son, even said, of the paragraph that cited Blumenthal, that it could remain the same. RS and NPOV, as said by User:The Devil's Advocate, don't give grounds to allegations of poor sourcing. Besides, for Abunimah's article, more research would have to be made to find other sources with the same argument. Problem is: why should one make such research? which Wikipedia policy demands more research to replace source that is deemed reliable? Two administrators have already said, directly or indirectly, that the method Plot Spoiler's employs to identify RSs is incorrect. Read what User:Malik Shabazz said of your contributions before, Plot Spoiler. And even more incorrect is these blatantly POV, ad hominem attacks he makes against Blumenthal and Abunimah, which he confuses for real editing policy. Guinsberg (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Guinsberg, on top of not actually responding to the points I've raised, you are again commenting about me (e.g. "Jayjg himself admits to using extra-policy justifications to argue for its continued exclusion", "You have implicitly recognized throughout this discussion"), making comments that are not true, not necessary, and which violate WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, which both say "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I tried ignoring it for a couple of comments, but it appears that only encourages more such comments. As I've stated before, I will only respond to comments that talk solely about content, and say nothing about contributors. It's up to you. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your own loss. And to keep repeating that my arguments don't address yours, won't make it true. Besides, anyone can see that more than once you have admitted that your concerns are not grounded on Wikipedia policies. I'm not lying, and this observation is actually very consequential, very necessary, for this debate. It is therefore good that you don't answer. As states WP:TALK, this space is to debate Wikipedia policies and their application to the entry: a subject that you have avoided for some time. Curious interpretation of WP:NPA, by the way. Guinsberg (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Vague accusations always a bad idea. Pointing out actual problems or inconsistencies with diffs preferable. While there may be POV involved in demand for better ref, it's just easier and less of a waste of time and energy to provide it and then use your preferred ref as a backup to show more than one individual thought such and such. Too much insistence on a less mainstream ref for pretty much the same sentiments can be POV too. CarolMooreDC 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa[edit]

I added the section about Frank Zappa's criticism's in response to the ADL's criticisms, but do not know how to include the reference. The text was taken from an interview on the Dick Cavett show, which interview can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeUe5-HcsT0&feature=BFa&list=PL72D331EA8815F799&lf=results_video. If someone could tell me how to cite that reference, or simply do it themselves, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Rehtworc (talkcontribs) 03:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've removed the insertion for several reasons:
  1. Youtube is not a reliable source
  2. A television interview is a primary source
  3. 40-year-old opinion from a rock musician about a song of his is basically trivia, and WP:UNDUE weight here.

IT IS ONLY TRIVIA WHEN ZAPPA SAYS IT ifi t was Foxman it would be a founded criticism of antisemitic lyrics DON"T YOU THINK. and by the way explain me why Youtube is not a reliable source? 77.113.26.24 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)shemyaza banned as ever


If this issue has any significance at all, the reliable secondary sources will have written of it. If you wish to add this material, please find those sources. Jayjg (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Random Secondary Source about the criticisms, though without the famous quote, from People 1979: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20073692,00.html and for the quote the zappa article has cited the following: [145 ^] Peterson, Chris (November 1979), He's Only 38 and He Knows How to Nasty, Relix Magazine. That article also sources a biography for the claims by the ADL as [138 ^ a b] Miles, 2004, Frank Zappa, p. 234. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.126.1 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

BulbBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ADL, Apartheid, Harassment of Arabs, Shift to Right[edit]

"How the Anti Defamation League spied on Americans for apartheid S.Africa, harassed Arab-Americans & moved far right"

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/kings-garbage-76228/

AntiqueReader (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hanley, Robert (July 20, 2001). "Middle East Politics Add Heat To Campaigns for Governor". The New York Times. 
  2. ^ "National Muslim groups condemn ADL "Anti-Muslim McCarthyism"". Council on American-Islamic Relations. June 8, 2001.