Talk:Anti-Defamation League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

He was convicted and this conviction was upheld in several courts. One should add convicted despite having quite some social power. While lynching is illegal, I see no reason listing him as a murder victim, though. -- (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's just silly; illegally and deliberately killing someone is the very definition of murder. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:00, 26 September 2015 (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"

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

Youtube hence not usable edit summaries[edit]

this revert, Blankfort, 'Panel 1 What is the Israel Lobby and How Does It Work?,' 48:28-68:08 minutes.

This is a detailed talk given by Jeffrey Blankfort, addressing the ADL’s behaviour in one specific incident.

The lecture was delivered in the Panel 1 What is the Israel Lobby and How Does It Work? Conference at the National Press Club in Washington on April 10, 2015 hosted by WRMEA. WRMEA then mounted it on Youtube, since it was not expected to be covered by the mainstream US press. The reverts by Debresser and Plot Spoiler justify themselves by asserting Youtube is not a reliable source. That is a false edit summary.

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples

YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. In general, unless the video is not clearly marked as "official" with a name strongly identified with the notable publisher or source, best practice is to treat it as a copyright violation and not use it.

I'd appreciate some discussion of this. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead extremely lacking[edit]

Per MOS:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. . . .The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

The article includes a large portion of both prominent criticism and controversy, all well sourced and documented. And yet none of this is observeable in the lead; not a single mention of criticism or controvery. I'm going to try to fix this, but it may need to be rewritten entirely. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ADL letters referring to Finkelstein as a "known Holocaust denier"[edit]

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.[1][2][3]

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

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)