Talk:Anti-Defamation League

ADL letters referring to Finkelstein as a "known Holocaust denier"

I think some reference to this material belongs in the section discussing Finkelstein. I am open to how to best phrase it, but I object to deleting it entirely (WP:CENSORED). What I added this time was:

In response to Finkelstein's criticism of the ADL, the ADL sent letters referring to Finkelstein as a "known Holocaust denier". Finkelstein is the son of two Holocaust survivors, most of whose family died in the Holocaust.

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Read WP:CENSORED. That didn't happen. Your sources are Finkelstein and a source that says members of the JDL (note the J) called him a denier. And that source is by David Klein, who might be a dubious source, see [1] and [2]. Where is the media coverage of his interview and the ADL letters (which so far are unsourced). Doug Weller talk 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, have I missed something? Where does Finkelstein mention these letters? And I forgot - why would we mention his family? Also, if you copied this from his article, you did it without attribution so it's a copyright violation, something that however can be fixed if you do it again, just put in the subject line 'copied from this article. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? The fact that Finkelstein mother survived the Majdanek concentration camp and his father survived the Auschwitz concentration camp is in no way relevant to the letters the ADL sent calling Finkelstein a "known Holocaust denier"? Just when I think the Wikipedia Foundation can not sink any lower, they always surprise me. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

First, we know nothing definite about these letters. Secondly, what we think is irrelevant, we require sources establishing connections. Otherwise it's editorial comment/original research. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And what is your reason for removing the long standing paragraph previous to my edit? No fun being an admin unless you can obliterate all NPOV information that do not conform to your narrow world view? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And there goes any hope I had for a meaningful good faith discussion. But the answer is easy, read WP:SYNC. I've added the review/criticism from the main article. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to learn the definition of bad faith on Wikipedia, google "Doug Weller Wikipedia".

As you have edit warred over multiple editors to WP:censor all reference to controversy in the "New antisemitism Controversy" section, the title of the section is now dishonest. You should either allow some discussion of the controversy, or rename the section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warred with multiple editors? Who removed that from the history, which doesn't show that. And If you're on the side of a number of those hits on Google, eg Stormfront... Your first hit of course ends up with an apology to me. But seriously, you shouldn't be using this page to attack other editors. I've got a thick skin so it doesn't affect me, but it could put other editors off from editing. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You began the personal attacks with your dishonest and unethical characterization of my edits on my talk page. Perhaps we can move on to the issues now. Do you intend to allow the latest addition of wording regarding Finkelstein to stand, or do you intend to continue with you campaign of WP:censoring the edits of multiple editors regarding Finkelstein? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Never is Now"?

I just deleted two poorly sourced sentences from the article that Beyond My Ken kept restoring with bad explanations. The sentences were first removed by Objective3000, who questioned how a 2016 source could write about an event that took place in 2017. Unfortunately, Beyond My Ken didn't use an edit summary so I don't know how he justified the mental gymnastics involved with his reversion. When an IP editor reverted, complaining that both sources were self-published, Beyond My Ken wrote that was okay, because they were expressing their opinions.

No, they were not. The first source, being used to establish that the ADL sponsored a conference in November 2017, cannot be based on an opinion. By its nature, a statement of fact in an encyclopedia article needs a fact-based source, not a citation to an opinion. In any event, because it was a garbage, self-published source (the conference website), nobody noticed that the conference actually took place in 2016. That explains how the second source, an alt-right blog from 2016, could write about attending the 2017 conference: because it was in 2016.

There's an old expression in computer science: GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. With crappy sources—the conference website and an alt-right blog crowing that it had "infiltrated" the conference—it's no wonder that our article was wrong.

Bottom line, without reliable secondary sources, these "facts" don't belong in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Malik, you're certainly wrong about the first source. The ADL is a reliable primary source for reporting that the ADL held a conference - that has always been the case with regard to primary sources. The fact that it's an ADL blog, is irrelevant.

As for the other, you may have a point, but a blog published by an alt-righter which reported their own opinion is a suitable source for that opinion -- see WP:SPS if you're unsure about that. I'm not going to follow this up, since it's not all that important, but I do think you might take a quick look at the policies involved to refresh your memory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm "certainly wrong", why did the article say—more importantly, why did you twice revert the article to say—that the conference was in November 2017 when that clearly could not have been the case if anybody with half a brain had read the two sources together? Are you seriously suggesting that we rely on a page that's likely to be updated later this year with the 2018 conference agenda? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's 2:30 in the morning here, I have an intenstinal bug, and the dog ate my homework, so I'll admit to the possibility that I misread or missed something. I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be UNDUE. The ADL, I presume, has held many summits on anti-semitism over its existence. This might have been the first NYC one. Members of the alt-right (an ill defined group regardless) attending an open summit seems to be not too noteworthy.Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ADL files controversy

Objective3000 reverted my addition of two citations to the section on Leon L. Lewis and the ADL files controversy. The two citations in question are books by two scholars, Steven Ross and Laura Rosenzweig, published by reputable publishers (Bloomsbury and NYU Press). The reason given by Objective3000 for the reversion was "Sorry, but these sources do not appear to pass WP:IRS." I'm not sure why Objective3000 thinks these sources are not reliable, third-party, published sources. Can someone (preferably Objective3000) please explain this reasoning? Ungathering (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I accept your reversion. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ADL Founding, July or October?

I vaguely recall When I spoke to the ADL director Jonathan Greenblatt a few years ago he told me Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith was founded July 11th, 1913, that October was when it was announced in the Bnai Brith newsletter. Does anyone have any further information about this founding date? TonyMorris68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyMorris68: It is common for organizations to exist informally for a while before they are established formally. Maybe that's what happened here. The best evidence I can find in a short search is the first report of the ADL. It doesn't give a founding date but it says "When the League was organized in the fall of 1913", which supports October and not July. Maybe you can find other clues in that long document. Zero^talk 08:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I just consulted about a dozen sources I have (none is a history of the ADL, which may or may not exist—I didn't search the web, I merely looked at what's on my bookshelves). While they all agreed that the ADL was founded in 1913, none was more specific in terms of a date. Interestingly, one source (Historical Dictionary of the Jews) says it was founded in New York while two others (Encyclopedia of American Jewish History, article written by Abraham Foxman, and The Jews of the United States) correctly describe its establishment by Sigmund Livingston in Chicago. (None of the other sources mentioned the city in which it was founded.)

Interestingly, this article says the ADL was founded in October 1913, and doesn't cite any sources; Sigmund Livingston says September 17, 1913, citing an article several days later in the Macon (Georgia) Telegraph and a 1956 Chicago Tribune article, both offline. I'm skeptical that what Jews did in Chicago was considered news-worthy in Macon in 1913, but I'm going to AGF. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The full text is behind a paywall but the Macon Telegraph of Sep 18, 1913 had an article with title "Jews organize an Anti-Defamation League". It still matches the "fall of 1913" that I found but not the October claim.

There was also a NYT article on Sep 18, 1913, p4, which I have access to. Title="Jews in War on Ridicule". Says: "Chicago, Sep. 17.---Prominent Jews today organized the Anti-Defamation League of America, etc". No individuals named. This name "Anti-Defamation League of America" also appears once in the first report that I cited above. Zero^talk 03:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The B'nai B'rith Messenger announced the founding of the "Anti-Defamation League of America" in its Sep 26 issue: [3]. In light of all these Septembers, we should replace October by September in the article. Zero^talk 03:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the month of September (or late September) seems more fitting based on the sources. However, one caveat is they do not call the organization ADL of B'nai B'rith, but ADL of America. Could there have been a false start? There are numerous sources which suggest or imply the Leo Frank case played a pivitol part in the founding of ADL. One B'nai B'rith member, whose name I don't recall, told me years ago that Leo Frank in early 1913 had complained to Bnai Brith national office that there unflattering caricatures of Jews in the motion picture theatres and vaudeville play houses. Interestingly, in a September 24th, 1913 issue of Georgia's Atlanta Constitution daily newspaper, Leo Frank was unanimously re-elected president of Atlanta B'nai B'rith by his 500 member lodge, for a second term. This was two months after his August 25th conviction for murdering a teenage girl Mary Phagan. He had first been elected in 1912. During his second term he would serve as Atlanta president of the gate city lodge while he was incarcerated in jail awaiting his appeals on conviction for the Mary Phagan murder. TonyMorris68 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that "of America" also appears in the founding charter, see [4]. I think it just means they stopped using "of America" at some later time. Speaking of Leo Frank, it is amazing how many sources think that the ADL was founded in response to Frank's lynching. Zero^talk 12:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're a sharp cookie, I also noticed the same thing and was scratching my noggin perplexed by this claim. It's shocking too that many of these same sources who claim ADL was founded in response to Leo Frank's lynching are considered to be scholars. ADL was founded in late September of 1913, and Leo Frank was lynched on August 17, 1915, so I don't know why some people think time flows backward instead of forward. Cheers for your good research. TonyMorris68 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The lede contains a section that states what the ADL describes itself as. Surely this should not be included in the lede. If the KKK describes itself as a benevolent club it wouldn't be included in their page lede. Can we delete the section in the lede where the ADL describes itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals, and protects civil rights for all", doing so through "information, education, legislation, and advocacy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.98.233 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the second part (self-description of its purpose) is appropriate and usual for leads of organizations. However I agree that the self-praise in the first part is not appropriate in the lead, or anywhere else for that matter. Zero^talk 22:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Change in Armenian genocide position

This 2016 statement by CEO Jonathan Greenblatt supported U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide. Should it be added to that section? Raymond1922 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is too good on this Zionist propaganda

ADL is worthless, not a legitimate organization, when Zionism is money and colonialism , period. It's first rate propaganda. I don't think it's neutral this article. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 10:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)