Talk:Anti-Defamation League

This article's choice of coverage is ridiculous

Probably 90% of it is devoted to the last two decades.70.20.108.19 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

True, plus it is absurdly tilted towards criticism. I am moving the criticisms to a separate page, on the model of other organizations, see Human Rights Watch.Historicist (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid POV fork

An attempt was made to remove all criticism from the article, and put some of it in a spinoff article at Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League. That's a WP:POVFORK. I've undone that, and started an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League. --John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put the article back the way it was while the AFD runs its course.Historicist (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Better organization

I am very happy that the POV fork "Criticism" article was removed on AfD. However, what is now here as a Criticism section is fairly dreadful. It is a random collection of everyone who has said something negative about the ADL, with no apparent thought to organization or flow. There is a good reason why WP:CRITicism sections are discouraged, and this is a good example of their flaws. I think almost all of the material currently under criticism would fit in a better article, but the points should be integrated into the flow and narrative of the whole article.

Making the problem worse, however, is the fact that the article as a whole is also pretty bad. All the various activities, positions, persons, are also thrown slapdash against the page, each accompanied by a micro-headline that overcharacterizes and editorializes. There is no real organization or sense of history in the article. Using fewer headlines with better narrative would improve this, and also allow putting the critical parts into their relevant discussions. LotLE×talk 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I added criticism links as inline part, so we may add info about criticism later. However external links also contains same criticism links. Should we keep criticism as inline text or in external links section. Kasaalan (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In "the perfect article" there should be no "External Links" section at all. Using external links is basically just a way to keep a "TODO" list of things that really should be incorporated into the text at some point. So if there are duplicate links, we should definitely remove the catch-all section version of them, and only keep the inline-link or footnote versions of the same resource. LotLE×talk 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

Among other unresolved issues, the article should maybe mention the fact that the Anti-Defamation League supports Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This could maybe seem surprising for an organization that claims to be progressive on most social issues, such as a woman's right to an abortion, but which doesn't mind legitimizing some of the most extremist fringes of the Jewish settler movement, also known as religious zionism. Some of the far-right rabbis in that movement probably don't have very much in common with Abraham Foxman, who is comparatively liberal in comparison to many key figures in modern Israeli politics. ADM (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo-nazis as article sources

User:Jonund has repeatedly inserted a paragraph that s/he sources only to a neo-Nazi website. As long as that dramatic failure of WP:RS is used, we should immediately and categorically remove the material.

However, the material itself is not per se so extremist, although it is of somewhat questionable relevance. Basically, Jonund wants the article to point out that one year ADL gave a "free speech award" to Hugh Hefner. The editor also wants to prejudicially call Hefner a "pornographer" rather than something neutral like "publisher" (or simply wikilink his name). The spin of the neo-Nazi website (which quotes, apparently, an editorial by William Buckley) is that this award was a bad thing. Other than Jonund's own opinion of it, shared apparently with some neo-Nazis, the award is of no obvious notability here, especially if they gave one every year (as seems to be the case). Perhaps if there were some mainstream sources that prominently criticized that particular year's award, we could consider it for inclusion. As is, it seems to fail WP:BALANCE dramatically. LotLE×talk 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LotLE×talk has reverted an edit three times, claiming that it is sourced to a neo-Nazi website. The source is an article by William Buckley in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. Neither Buckley nor the newspaper are neo-Nazi, nor are they in any way associated with such ideas. Buckley's piece, however, has been made available online by a neo-Nazi website. This does not, of course, mean that the ideology of the website influences (retroactively!) the author. Any one with normal intelligence understands that the neutrality and reliability of the source is not compromised by the group who later reproduces it.

I could have patience with a young and inexperienced editor who has some difficulties grasping this, but this guy is a PhD and i have called his attention to his error twice. Can this repeated use of a most stupid form of argumentum ad hominem be anything but willful distortion? A good explanation is due, otherwise I expect an apology.

Hefner's life work is the publishing of pornography and promotion of free sex. Awarding such a person is controversial and notable. It also seems to be inconsistent with the values that the price is supposed to express, as Buckley points out (and is commended for in the New York Times). If you want a prominent source, you don't need to go further than to Buckley. --Jonund (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jojund is disingenous in several respects in the above comment. I have reverted his/her insertion twice, but not three times. I am not sure if s/he is still unaware of WP:RS or is simply choosing to ignore it. In any case, his/her insistence on citing his/her insertion to a neo-Nazi source is troubling. I suspect that it is possible to find a reliable, non-extremist, source that reprints Buckley's opinion piece. However, even supposing such a source was found, Buckley's opinion (which is indeed non-extremist, albeit still highly partisan) is not in itself a WP:RS of anything whatsoever.

The fact that would need to be established for inclusion of similar material in the article is that giving Hefner an award is somehow notable to the history of the ADL as an organization. Just establishing that "Buckley doesn't like that award" is neither here nor there. This relevant claim has not been cited, and seems extraordinarily unlikely on its face. Any WP:OR or WP:SOAPBOX by Jonund to conclude that the award is self-evidently a bad thing (or inconsistent with other ADL positions, or whatever personal belief is being advanced) has no place in an encyclopedia. LotLE×talk 23:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LotLE is exactly right. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LotLE and Jayjg shuns ransacking their misdeeds and think the readers won't notice it if they go on with their lies. The rhetorical effect of associating a source with nazism, however, turns into an anticlimax when the trick has already been exposed (several times, at that). It was Jayjg who stood for the first revert; sorry for attributing all three to LotLE, but his attention had nonetheless been called to the error twice, as I said, before he wrote the first comment above.

This farce is made all the more grotesque when Jayjg gives his testimony to LotLE's lies. Note that he has served on WP's Arbitration Committe for one and a half year. How do you think WP's reputation will fare when the Arbitration Committe turns out to contain this kind of people? WP presupposes a minimum of thrust among its editors, who are expected to be honest and try to overcome their bias. This kind of behavior is highly detrimental to the project.

As to Buckley's op-ed article, we should be careful not to engage in wikilawyering, which may be the implication of invoking WP:RS in preference to WP:IAR. WP:Reliable sources/examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? clarifies something that can be applied to op-eds, too: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable". Buckley is a well-known professional publisher and his testimony is credible.

WP:OR refers to drawing conclusions that are not supported by the sources. The policy does not pertain to how we judge the weight of the facts represented in the sorurces. It does not disqualify arguments on the talk page. None of the information in the section Political positions in this article is claimed to be "notable to the history of the ADL as an organization" by the sources cited.

As LotLE doesn't agree that the award is obviously relevant, he seems to be unaware of the controversy surrounding Hugh Hefner, his brainchild Playboy and pornography generally. --Jonund (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonund, I didn't read past the second paragraph; your comments were entirely directed at contributors, not at content, and were highly abusive. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please re-state your comments, referring only to article content. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dishonesty is serious and should be exposed. I understand that you want to forget it, but the way to get the better of it is to apologize. Read my post if you want to engage yourself in this case. --Jonund (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I was upset by your defense of LotLE after his misbehavior. As I had focused mainly on his claim that I was using a nazi source, I took for granted that you wanted to defend this and not only the legitimate objections. Now, I start wondering whether this was necessarily your intention (your own use of the nazi argument may have been hasty and was never repeated). If it wasn’t, I recommend that you make it clear so I don’t judge you unfairly and we can go ahead. --Jonund (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

fpp.co.uk is the website of a convicted Holocaust denier, who was found by a British court to have "associated with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism" and "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." It cannot be used for citing material here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously implying that you think the reliability of a mainstream conservative source is compromised by the person who has made that printed source available on the web? --Jonund (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously stating that fpp.co.uk does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source, and so cannot be used for citations. I leave it to you to decide whether the material in question could be compromised by someone who was found by a court to "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." And that's not even going into the fact that the material itself egregiously violated WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If what you mean is that the document on the website is not identical with the article in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, there is no reason to assume that. Irving makes out the Holocaust never happened and depicts Nazi-Germany in flattering terms, which demands breakneck interpretations of history. Hence, his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, who had called him a Holocaust-denier and accused him of falsifying history, failed and the court found that he misrepresented history. That is a serious thing. Yet, it's not the same as faking documents. And assuming that he would forge a document like this one is absurd, since he has very little to gain and a lot to lose. A forgery would be easily detected and harm his tarnished reputation still more. The guy is no idiot and would not engage is such meaningless behavior. --Jonund (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, which address all the issues you have raised. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They support none of the issues I raised in my latest post, that is a strong bias does not imply forgery, and we should not assume Irving to be an idiot. --Jonund (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to assume anything. Holocaust denier sites are ipso facto unreliable sources; when one is dedicated to promulgating fraud, nothing one says, publishes, or does is sufficiently reliable to use as a source on Wikipedia. Doesn't have anything to do with Irving in particular; all Holocaust denial sites get treated the same way. They can be used as sources, with appropriate weight, in articles about themselves; that's about it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you do assume Holocaust deniers are ipso facto idiots. That's a necessary assumption if you suspect Irving of risking more of his reputation by forging a document anybody can check. It's, however, not a dogma that we need to subscribe to. Neither do we have to take the leap of thought that an extrapolation from strong bias to forgery implies. Such a principle might have incalculable consequences. I've never seen it used in other contexts.

By the way, I've had some time to distance myself from this exchange, and now I see that I was too temperamental in my first reactions, and I apologize for hard words. --Jonund (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous "league"!

These people are ridiculous! The Jewish people are the richest in the United States! What else do they want? If we support the existence of the Jewish State, then oh, we are not "anti-Semitic", oh, but then, if we support the Palestinian State, then we are anti-Semitic? All they wanna do is be control. They think they the shit. But they aren't gonna get that much control tell ya that right now.