Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

How many editors of this article are Jewish?

Sorry, but this article is so one sided it defies belief. This doesn't show the ADL in an impartial light at all, its phony, and I'd hazard that this article is written almost entirely by Jewish editors/or its sympathisers. Don't you people realise the damage you are doing here? In time, Wiki's credibility is going to go down the tubes because of you people, and you can congratulate yourselves when it happens...

Longterm this simply isn't gonna stand up. Mark thy words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.98 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is anti-Semitism. I do think it is a little goody-goody, but the Critisism section is over the top, or at least the first quote is.

What are your specific problems with the article?76.182.88.254 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is all that pro-Israel. There's a reasonable criticism section. The Chomsky quote is in there, pointing out that the ADL has morphed from a civil rights organization into another component of the Israel lobby. There's certainly an organized effort by Israeli activists to put a pro-Israel spin on certain articles (IsraeliActivism.com was openly recruiting people to push their POV in Wikipedia [1]), but this isn't one of the articles that gets hit all that badly. If you want to see POV-pushing, see Israeli apartheid, where it takes an annual arbitration to keep the situation under control. --John Nagle 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the first post in this topic. This article is a small bit one sided. What many people seem to have forgotten was that the point of an encyclopedia is to present just the facts, in a neutral fashion. And also, I notice there aren't any sections about the question of whether the ADL is actually an unregistered agent of Mossad inside the United States. *NOTE* I am not saying that the ADL is actually a part of Mossad (Israels intelligence agency), my point is that there are many people who do believe this, and this issue isn't presented in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bman92 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many people who believe that the government is secretly implanting microchips in people to control their thoughts. That doesn't mean it belongs in wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Conservative bias

There's a bit in the article about the ADL having a conservative bias. That needs to be better supported by references. That subject needs tracking over time. In the 1960s, the ADL was considered a left-wing liberal organization, positioned roughly alongside the ACLU. Sometime around 1980, the leadership of the Jewish lobbying organizations in the US got behind the Reagan campaign, and the Israeli lobby moved to the right, eventually teaming up with the Christian neocons during the Bush years.[2] The ADL seems to have moved to the right as well, although that's not as well documented as it is with AIPAC. --John Nagle 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this subhead (to Conservative bias? Or liberal?) to reflect a change I have made regarding charges of liberal bias! Granted, my excerpt of Ann Coulter's piece may seem a bit longish, but it reflects the fact that very little criticism of the organization — certainly from a conservative point of view! — exists in this article. Follows my addition to the article:
Conservatives like Ann Coulter, on the other hand, are on the record for stating that the "Anti-Defamation League is to Jews what the National Organization for Women is to women and the ACLU is to civil libertarians. They represent not Jews or women or civil libertarians, but the left wing of the Democratic Party. … When it comes to conservatives, the Anti-Defamation League is the Pro-Defamation League." The self-described polemicist goes on to charge that "the ADL viciously attacks conservatives, implying that there is some genetic anti-Semitism among right-wingers in order to hide the fact that anti-Semites are the ADL's best friends — the defeatists in Congress, the people who tried to drive Joe Lieberman from office, the hoodlums on college campuses who riot at any criticism of Muslim terrorists and identify Israel as an imperialist aggressor, and liberal college faculties calling for "anti-apartheid" boycotts of Israel." Coulter brazenly states that the "Democratic Party sleeps with anti-Semites every night, but groups like the ADL love to play-act their bravery at battling ghosts, as if it's the 1920s and they are still fighting quotas at Harvard.… Like the noose hysteria currently sweeping New York City, liberals are always fighting the last battle because the current battle is too frightening."
(How long before the A.D.L. kicks out all its Jews? by Ann Coulter, October 31, 2007) Asteriks 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was typical. And it took less than an hour. Less than an hour for conservative criticism of the ADL to vanish without a word of explanation, without an argument, or without even a simple FYI note to the effect that the censorship (sorry, the editing) had taken place. Asteriks 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is not a reputable source for any article other than Ann Coulter. --FOo (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced comments

I went through the article and removed unsourced data, both pro- and con-. With controversial topics such as this, extra care must be taken to ensure all supporting and denigrating statements need to be completely above board and contribute to the neutral stance of the article. Please do not restore any information to the article without properly reliable and verifiable sources. Thank you. -- Avi 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically relating to Chomsky and Necessary Illusions, can someone please provide the page reference for verification? Thanks. -- Avi 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

www.truthtellers.org

This Christian organization charges that the ADL is pushing a pro-gay agenda and want Christians locked up in nut houses, jail, worse. Should this org be incl. on the "Criticisim" section? 205.240.144.198 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already includes plenty of criticism from reputable sources. There's no need to throw in some oddball conspiracy website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The expression "batshit crazy" comes to mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember that when it happens =)71.113.75.227 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Rense Placed....

....because he and his website continuously criticise the ADL all the time, such as "The ADL 's Agenda to Have Christians Imprisoned In Prison and Insane Asylums". This is still going on. 205.240.144.198 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So is the censorship here. Replaced the Jeff Rense link after some pro-ADL ally removed it. HE claims the ADL HATES Christians. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So talk about that in Jeff Rense's article; that's the only place it's of any value. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adllogo.jpg

Image:Adllogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Sociologists' criticism?

It seems the professors are making an important criticism that while they may use ADL (mentioned specifically) and other groups' information for "general information" purposes, as sociologists they consider them prejudiced and have to warn readers that even using only general info, errors may creep in. (Unfortunately, they don't make the statement as clearly and succinctly as they could.)

This seems like an important criticism from people who have studied the same groups more objectively. Do I need to quote more of what they say on this to make this clear? It seems to me this general epistemological criticism is just as important as the specific indignities ADL is accused of. In fact, it might even go first.

Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” note that they frequently used ADL sources, as well as other "watchdog" groups', in their book. However they qualified their use of these sources, noting "errors" from them might appear in their book and writing: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.”REF:Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 2-3.

Carol Moore 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's simply too vague; it would be appropriate criticism in an article on "watchdog" groups, but in the absence of anything but an offhand mention of the ADL (not to mention all the uncritical use the book makes of the ADL's research), its too weak. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Having some well known person assail ADL on some specific lie may be more dramatic, but the criticisms of sociologists who feel then need to devote 300 plus words to qualifying their use of ADL etc. as sources is more encyclopedic. And that IS what we are creating here.
Here's a more specific summary of their comments, presented in same order as written:
REWRITE Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” note that “since little social scientific writing on the current movement exists we at times used the observations of organizations directly opposed the movement.” They admit that "errors" from these sources might appear in their own book. They named ADL as one of these “prominent” sources. Explaining that these "watchdog" groups “are setting particular agendas,” they qualified their use of these sources,: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.” They note these groups ignore “claims” that do not help them “wield political influence among policy makers.” REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 2-3.
Carol Moore 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol--again, no matter how you bend it, this is a group critique of "watchdogs", and not specifically the ADL. And is it really a "criticism," or as they say, a "qualifying" of their sources? Pointing out possible limitations in your sources is standard procedure, and not necessarily a critique. Nowhere do they specifically address issues with the ADL itself, which seems to be the minimum critical mass necessary to be included as "criticism." Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination

Isn't just the fact they claim to be for anti defamation of Jewish people being discriminative in a way? Why not just say anti defamation for all. Why the special treatment? Just wondering, there are two sides of racism/discrimination, the racism/discrimination which promotes a single race/body of people for special attention or support, and the other side which bashes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.75.227 (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not losing too much sleep worrying about this. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to see you care =) no I got plenty sleep71.113.75.227 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong quote

can't fix it myself, but the article says: "This [the notion that these were information calls, not pushing for any action] was contradicted, however, by the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk who claimed in an interview with the Washington Post that calls by the ADL and the American Jewish Committee, made just an hour before the scheduled event, were "exercising a delicate pressure"."

The source quotes the Consul General as saying: "The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted [emphasis mine] as exercising a delicate pressure," I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I have a hard time seeing how this could have been misquoted accidentally. 216.98.233.245 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The ADL is nothing more than an international criminal organization. The ADL (B'nai B'rith International) is also at the forefront of introducing anti-free speech legislation in congresses and parliaments all over the world. Of course they don't call it anti free speech, they Jew the terminology and call it 'hate speech.'

And what is 'hate speech'?

It is simply any speech Jews dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.61 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ADL and Hannah Arendt

Something should be mentioned about this topic.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.219 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

on the discussion page, as it seems to be.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.219 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

ADL files controversy

This intro paragraph is non-neutral:

Since the 1930s the ADL has been gathering information and publishing reports on anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice, and on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, racist, anti-democratic, violent, and extremist individuals and groups. As a result, the organization has amassed what it once called a "famous storehouse of accurate, detailed, unassailable information on extremist individuals and organizations."[1] Over the decades the ADL has assembled thousands of files.

It is crafted in such a way as to suggest that the ADL intelligence gathering was not a big deal, because it was part of the ADL's standard anti-bigotry operations. In fact, the groups that were spied on do not fit the categories described in the intro paragraph. I would suggest this as a new intro:

Since the 1930s the ADL has publicly acknowledged that it gathers information on anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice, and on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, racist, anti-democratic, violent, and extremist individuals and groups. However, in 1993, evidence came to light that the ADL had gathered information on many other types of organizations as well.

This is a neutral introduction that does not attempt to "spin" what follows. --Bill Chadwell (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That intro would be innaccurate -- heavily slanted. Bullock =/= the ADL. The section is fine as it is -- more than enough info provided. IronDuke 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The article says that "The ADL agreed to pay $175,000 for the court costs of the groups that sued it, promised that it would not seek information from sources it knew could not legally disclose such information, consented to remove sensitive information like criminal records or Social Security numbers from its files, and spent $25,000 to further relations between the Jewish, Arab and black communities." It also says that "An attorney for the ADL stated that "We knew nothing about the vast extent of the files. Those are not ADL's files. … That is all [Bullock's] doing." The intro which you are defending appears to be a non-neutral endorsement of the ADL's claims. --Bill Chadwell (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is not Jewish! Fix?

This article has the audacity to call Noam Chomsky Jewish! If "ethnically Jewish" is all that is meant here, then it should say that. Especially since it looks like the "fact" that he's Jewish is being used to criticize the ADL. I don't really understand things like citations and references, so I'm just posting my comment here. I give you a website full of quotes of Chomsky calling himself an atheist: http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky 24.174.30.146 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

-- The guy was born into the jewish community, was raised jewish, considers himself jewish (albiet an atheist jew) and is largely held as an example of a jewish intellectual. Look, Judaism isnt just a religion, just as it isnt really a race. Its an ethnicity. An identity. 121.44.225.22 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Exactly..the issue here is that it appears that reference to his jewishness was REMOVED, because it would add credence to his criticism of the ADL. Israel ITSELF considers him a jew, so how convenient that it only gets contested when it's convenient... A jew is one who is born of a Jewish mother OR one who converts..even one who renounces Judaism is still considered one, but as one who has destroyed himself. from :http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_IsraelWho.htm GolemCatcher (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Chomsky is a Jew. Yellow badging is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

--um...how is ACKNOWLEDGING that he is Jewish YellowBadging? That seems like a reckless use of the term..is it NOT relevant to his criticisms of the ADL that he IS Jewish? Born Jewish, raised Jewish, and yet still has issues with the Adl's modus operandi? PLease explain.. GolemCatcher (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Chomsky fully explains his background. We don't need to highlight it, he's famous as a linguist and political activist, not as a Jew. Jews have all sorts of political and other POVs - it's neither remarkable nor interesting that a Jew disapproves of the ADL. Many Jews do. Other Jews support it. Many Christians disapprove of the ADL. Other Christians support it. Chomsky's ethnicity or religious background is not relevant to this article.Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Leon Klenicki

Rabbi Leon Klenicki, the longtime interfaith director and co-liaison to the Vatican for the Anti-Defamation League, is remembered as a pioneer in interfaith relations. [3] Perhaps he is deserving of a stub article also. ADM (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ADL and Partial-birth abortion

I found this unusual declaration by which the ADL criticizes a ban on partial-birth abortion. [4] It is a bit surprising, since many Jewish leaders have been strongly pro-life, such as Moshe Feinstein and Yehuda Levin for example. Of course, there is more narrow and more controversial understanding of this pro-life philosophy, which is that it should primarily apply to Jews and not to Gentiles. Another matter of concern is that the Talmud appears to give similar instructions in favour of an ethnic-based pro-life position. ADM (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does.. Sanhedrin 37a of the Babylonian Talmud states: "Whoever destroys a soul from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he saved an entire world." Seems pretty exclusive to me. When you take other quotes into account, such as Kethoboth 3b "The seed (child) of a Christian is of no more value than that of a beast", it all becomes quite clear. Fortunately, not all Jews are insane degenerates like the ones who wrote this kind of racialist filth.114.78.174.193 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Mores have, in general, changed in the last 2500 years. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a scan of Kesubos 3b. The Talmud does not talk about gentile, let alone Christian, seed. Can you even read the Talmud? -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't work from here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so go to http://www.e-daf.com/ and select "Kesuvos" and "3b" in the drop down. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, didn't you realise yet? The books of most the religions contain contradictions such that you can pull out almost any answer you like, and as long as your rabid flock agree, you can run with it. My favourite is Genesis 34, that shows how god expects us to behave. Whatthewhatwhat (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we ban the ADL from editing wikipedia?

Look at this, someone answering to the whois of ADL added someones home address to an article, I assume hoping for violence against the family. They need to be banned from all of wikipedia, they are clearly an attack site, and giving out an address like this on the internet is probably a federal crime, as the racists whose address it is were under 18 at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prussian_Blue_(duo)&diff=prev&oldid=72501420

PS wikiscanner2 is great, I've uncovered a whole heap of dirty on the cabal and their socks/meats, Poor mans check user is especially good.

Whatthewhatwhat (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You do understand that the edit you're complaining about is three years old; and that the entire IP range of the ADL has made one and one edit only? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Glenn Beck's Criticism

Glenn Beck is a notable public figure, and after he was criticized by the ADL as being a fear monger, the LA Times ran a piece in response, Glenn Beck then responded. This is all well documented, and I do not see any reason not to include his opinion. Glenn Beck is a more notable figure than all the other individuals you have combined. If you disagree with Glenn Beck, do not like him, see him as a lying fear monger, well that does not exclude his opinion, just as the opinion of the Anti-Defamation League, which many see as a purely left wing political smear machine, is not excluded in Beck's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say that this is really a significant point of view. Beck is a professional commentator, and has opinions on every issue. This particular opinion doesn't appear to have received much attention from others, unlike some of his pronouncements.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It works like this: The statement may be relevant to insert into Beck's article, as a response to the suggestion that he's a hate monger; the suggestions might belong in the article, because ADL does have some expertise regarding right-wing hate mongering. On the other hand, Beck has no expertise regarding the ADL and its operations; his opinion is just that of a professional opinion monger. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to start a flame war. Glenn Beck's opinion on the ADL is significant to many people, somewhere around 9 million viewers, it competes with entire news organizations. He makes many critiques on political organizations, more so than your other individuals who have made critiques of the ADL. Would you be more okay if we labeled Glenn Beck a "controversial talk show host"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to to. 2 sentences about him in an area marked for individual criticism is not undue weight. That would more be if we posted the entire exchange between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, 2 sentences about him in this article is undue weight. In fact, two words about him in this article would be undue weight. Please review the comments above. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the ADL a reliable source?

As a lobby group, is it a reliable source for wikipedia purposes?93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review loaded question and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference to the explication of a "loaded question" is inappropriate in this circumstance, given that the questioner did not necessarily assume anything in posing the question "As a lobby group, is it a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes?" The description of the ADL as lobby group, one of the organization's roles, brings forth a valid concern as to its reliability and impartiality. Hence, it seems that the objector, implying that this question is loaded, may be unduly prejudiced against any and all possible objections against the subject in question, that is, the ADL, even when the objection is in the mild form of a legitimate question. See wikipedia:Avoid Bias debate and thank you for using Wikipedia. — Preceding comment added by 66.27.114.75 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just answer the damn question? 174.54.36.247 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not reliable. It's biased. Let's see them fight against the unfairness executed by the elitists against the middle and lower classes (as we have been taught we are anyway!). I bet THAT isn't a worthy cause!90.202.67.116 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims that any information that makes it into the mainstream press is considered reliable/true information. Thats about as truthful as an IOU from Tony Blair90.202.67.116 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Censorship" section

The new section has a bit of a problem. The entire thing about Gordon Thomas could well have been written by Gordon Thomas; indeed, its sole source is Gordon Thomas' own web page. If this event is significant enough to mention here, it should have a more neutral source, one would think. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything that could be considered RS for the censorship bit, though ADL's website does indeed call him a conspiracy theorist and anti-Israel, he seems to be an accomplished writer on factual spy material, as witnessed by the UK gov and court reaction to the MI5 book. Unomi (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but if we're going to devote this much weight to his claims, we need something other than himself making the claims. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
My post was meant to indicate that I agreed with you :) Unomi (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well then I agree with myself too! And I am unanimous in that! --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the accusation that the ADL has engaged in suppression or defamation clearly demonstrates a non-neutral point of view. I have removed the new section pending further discussion here. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't study this material and so won't comment on it. However, non-neutral points of view are perfectly fine if they are cited to a reliable source as opinions of someone notable. Zerotalk 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, but the section began: "The ADL has frequently exerted its influence to suppress, or defame the authors of, anti-Zionist works or any works that present Israel in a less than favorable light." There was no source to that assertion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

International?

The lead says the ADL is an "international" organization. I cannot see that description on the ADL's web page, but rather it says "Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency". "The nation" is of course the USA. Having interest/involvement in events outside the USA doesn't make it international either. So what is the reason for calling it international? Zerotalk 10:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition, having involvement outside the USA makes it international. Wikipedia calls international "Something (a company, language or organization) international mostly means that it involves more than one nation (country)". Webster expands the definition to "having a reputation that reaches beyond national boundaries". The ADL is international by having involvement in Israeli-American politics, and because it was reported on in J-Post, and BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 05:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry that is a very unconvincing argument. National organizations with international interests are still national organizations. Zerotalk 06:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Embellishments

The article is not enough critical towards the organization, for example the section about their goals but even more the one about "Relations with ethnic groups" by and large reflects too much it's self-conception! We should outline clearer that ADL is not a civil rights org but a lobbying organization with a clear agenda. Given the organizations public perception (in the USA as well as elsewhere), the criticism gets a raw deal in the article. --Severino (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Role in cancellation of speech by Tony Judt at Polish Consulate

I found the section Role in cancellation of speech by Tony Judt at Polish Consulate kinda biased. The ADL pointed out the talk ran contrary to Polish foreign policy. The Police embassy pulled the talk because they agreed the talk contradicted Polish foreign policy. How is this bizarre? The embassies exist to communicate foreign policy. We should really pull one of the more balanced quotes from the article on Tony Judt himself, like the one where the embassy affirms they made the decision on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues with Islamic Center Controversy section

I feel that this section attempts to whitewash the ADL's opposition to the "Ground Zero mosque" by misrepresenting the contents of their statement and the nature of the Park51 Muslim community center. The summary of the ADL's statement seems carefully constructed to avoid acknowledging that it was a statement in opposition to the construction of the center, as the cited summary by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency makes clear. In short: They didn't say "consider the sensitivities of the victim's families before you decide to build it", they said it shouldn't be built. Further, the paragraph in the statement questioning the source of funding for the center is inherently Islamophobic (would a group seeking to build a Catholic church face demands from anti-child-abuse groups to prove that they don't accept funding from pro-pedophile groups?) and can't be glossed over. (I'm not saying we have to call it out as Islamophobic here, but we need to point out they said it so readers can draw their own conclusions.) Finally, Park51 is a Muslim community center, not a mosque. We may want to include the term "Ground Zero mosque" in quotes or something for clarity, but it needs to be clear that that's a label used by opponents (like how it's treated in the Park51 article itself). Alereon (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that section is inaccurate. What the ADL actually said was

'Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain —unnecessarily — and that is not right.'

The ADL were against the building of the community centre, and were strongly criticised for their stance. I intend to add this criticism in, including criticism from various Jewish organisations, and individuals.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, the section as it stands is incomprehensible, since it makes it unclear why Fareed Zakaria and others objected to the statement, or indeed what they objected to. Also, which "holocaust" is meant by the comments about survivors of "the holocaust" having a right to be irrational? Is that a reference to 9/11 as a holocaust, or to Nazi Germany. If the latter, what on earth is its relevance? Paul B (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As above I gave notice of the revision that has balanced the section to give more than just the ADL's opinion of its actions. This should not be removed without discussion. Now we have various opinions given which balance the previous section in which only the ADL was quoted in regard to its actions. As Paul Barlow has written above, the previous section is incomprehensible particularly this claim '“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” I am happy to discuss this change.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has there been no discussion on the continual reverts to my changes? The discussion above clearly shows a concensus that the present section is far from being a neutral point of view. I will continue to make the changes that are recommended above, and resist attempts by others to OWN the page. The present section should not be left any longer, as it appears to have no support.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting any discussion on the above. If the discussion does not take place soon, then the concensus is to revert to the changes I made.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is a 100-year-old organization. It's already WP:UNDUE to devote a whole section to this minor incident in 2010. Now you want to compound the WP:UNDUE violation by adding an almost content-free comment that the ADL should "be ashamed of itself"? Also why are we quoting journalist op-eds at such length? And why are they suddenly "Jewish voices" - is there some reason for ethno-tagging here? Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Plot Spoiler, you seem to have a different perspective on this to those above. Others want to re balance the section, and remove content which they feel is incomprehensible. Also, are you saying that it is incorrect to refer to Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart, as Jewish? Why are we quoting the ADL at length as an authority on itself? What are you actually suggesting? Can I remove all of this? In an interview with the New York Times Abe Foxman said that although the group’s statement seemed to counter the ADL’s opposition to bigotry, “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” He also published a statement in reaction to criticism. In protest of ADL’s stance, CNN host Fareed Zakaria returned the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize the ADL awarded him in 2005. ADL chair Robert G. Sugarman responded to a critical New York Times editorial writing "we have publicly taken on those who criticized the mosque in ways that reflected anti-Muslim bigotry or used the controversy for that purpose" and noted that the ADL has combatted "Islamophobia This is the material that is causing concern. Can I remove it, yes or no?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recently inserted paragraph from non-notable "critic"

I've moved a recently inserted paragraph here for discussion:

Anti-war writer Ran HanCohen, an Israeli, has accused the ADL and Abrahamn Fox of treating anti-Arab bigotry differently from Anti-Semitism. As an evidence, HaCohen pointed out in one of his articles that the ADL has presented as proof of persistent European prejudice data drawn from an opinion poll showing that 49% of Europeans question their Jewish countrymen's commitment to their countries and think of Jews as rather more loyal to Israel.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.adl.org/Public%20ADL%20Anti-Semitism%20Presentation%20February%202009%20_3_.pdf |title=Attitudes Toward Jews in Seven European Countries |date=February 2009 |publisher=[[Anti-Defamation League]]}}</ref> However, argues HaCohen, Foxman has refused to criticize similar positions held by Israeli Foreign Relations Minister, [[Avigdor Lieberman]], and his party, the [[Yisrael Beiteinu]] Party, towards Israeli Arabs, whom they accuse of not being loyal to Israel. "No Loyalty – No Citizenship" has been one of Yisrael Beiteinu Party's foremost slogans. "Well, Foxman actually defends Lieberman, describing him as harmless: 'He's not saying expel them. He's not saying punish them.'<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/02/10/1002906/controversial-lieberman-proposal-finds-support-among-american-jews |title=Lieberman loyalty proposal finds support in U.S. |date=February 10, 2009 |publisher=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]]}}</ref> Not at all: he's just demonizing them and threatening to deprive them of their citizenship. No big deal", wrote HaCohen.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=14256 |title=Abe Foxman's 'Anti-Semitic Pandemic' |date=February 17, 2009 |publisher=[[Antiwar.com]]}}</ref>

As is obvious, the pararaph has quite a few issues with it:

  1. Most of the paragraph is sourced to two sources that don't mention Ran HaCohen at all, despite being presented as HaCohen's arguments/views. As such, they're obvious WP:SYNTH.
  2. The rest of the paragraph is sourced to an opinion piece from HaCohen on antiwar.com, which is not a WP:RS, and certainly not so given its rather personal attack nature on Abe Foxman, the director of the ADL.
  3. Why would Wikipedia care what Ran HaCohen's opinions are anyway? He doesn't seem particularly notable, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, at any rate.

I'm interested in other views; please ensure, though, per WP:NPA, that responses discuss only article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to thank you for restoring the paragraph until we solve this matter.
  1. I don't understand this argument. How does including links to sources other than that for HaCohen's article, sources he mentioned on his article so his readers could verify his presentation of others' views and actions, weaken the case for including his views on the Wikipedia text?
  2. Who said his opinion lacks relevance? Is there even an objective criterium from which it can be decided which writers, and what opinions, are relevant or prominent enough? The link you point to on Wikipedia policy affirms that opinions can meet relevance standards as long as they are presented for what they are, as opinions instead of facts; it's not said that the entries should contain only the opinions of the very famous. And: a. HaCohen's views about Abraham Foxman and the ADL weren't presented as facts; b. his is a valid criticism for which he presented an argument (this is clearly not a smear or a personal attack as you implied); and c. that point has been made by others in prominent venues as well. (There's an Al Jazeera English opinion piece on this subject that I'm considering to include in the text.)
  3. Funny that you say he's not prominent enough for Wikipedia. But both the writer and the venue that has published his views - Antiwar.com - have Wikipedia entries. You can't decide alone what are the opinions and which are writers people care about or are relevant enough for this entry. I myself don't see any objective criterium being invoked to bar them from this article, at the same time that it's considered notable John Gorenfeld's criticism of the ADL's lack of protests against the Church of Unification's alleged anti-semitic rhetoric.
Guinsberg (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Responding to your points:
  1. See WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Arguments such as these must be sourced to secondary sources, not primary.
  2. I didn't say "his opinion lacks relevance". His opinion is definitely about the topic of the article, so it's "relevant". However, my point was that the source was an opinion piece that failed WP:RS, particularly in this case, when there are WP:BLP implications.
  3. You are correct, he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, that does nothing to counter the issues raised in points 1 and 2, which are definitive. Moreover, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a strong argument - is material doesn't belong in an article, the solution is not to add more such material, but to remove the problematic material.
Per WP:BRD, I'm removing this material again, pending consensus on adding it. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. I have just read WP:SYNTH, and I understand it advises not to make synthesis of arguments not explicitly stated in one of the sources. What I did, however, was to summarize an argument that was made in one of the sources, HaCohen's article. Anyone who reads my paragraph and his text can see the argument is not my own. What I did is clearly neither original research nor improper synthesis to advance unstated positions. As for WP:PRIMARY, I have to apologize: Though I've been registered as a Wikipedia user for some time, I'm not a frequent editor and I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. For this reason I can't see how your link about the kinds of sources, primary or secondary, has anything to do with our debate and how it can be used to justify the removal of HaCohen's argument. The same applies to WP:RS: though you've been saying the paragraph fails to meet relevance standards, I fail to see what, on the guideline, can be used to imply that: you yourself admitted HaCohen's article is relevant as it is about our subject, and, as I said before, his views weren't presented as anything other than that, not as facts, which, if that was the case, would result in a problem of relevance.
  2. You did say HaCohen's opinions aren't relevant. In your first post, you asked: "Why would Wikipedia care what Ran HaCohen's opinions are anyway? He doesn't seem particularly notable, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, at any rate." You're employing inconsistent, subjective interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines to bar his opinions from the article. In any event, since HaCohen's point was about ADL and Foxman's activism and politics, I again fail to see what anything on WP:RS or WP:BLP can be used to preclude his views from being presented on Wikipedia. If any criticism against living persons, no matter how well argued, can be interpreted as a personal attack, then critical opinions on prominent public figures, opinions that are part of the public discourse which Wikipedia strives to capture ("Wikipedia articles should (...) mak[e] sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"), should be removed from the encyclopaedia entirely.
  3. Point taken. Guinsberg (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
To begin with, when it comes to things like arguments or opinions, primary sources can be used in addition to secondary ones, but not in place of them. To avoid WP:SYNTH, any argument supporting HaCohen would have to be sourced directly to secondary sources.
In addition, no, I didn't say HaCohen's opinions weren't relevant. Asking why we would care about what someone says is not the same as saying his views are irrelevant. The internet is filled with people who have opinions, and even if their opinions are relevant to a topic, Wikipedia typically doesn't care what they have to say on it, for various good reasons. "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.

Finally, WP:BLP is also critical here, because HaCohen is literally describing Foxman as a hypocrite and "despicable". When it comes to these kinds of accusations, with BLP implications, antiwar.com simply does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page to comment on this issue. I think the basic issue is that antiwar.com doesn't qualify as an WP:RS and everything follows from that. Since they aren't regarded as an RS, their content isn't relevant for Wikipedia articles apart from in their own article. But, for the sake of argument, if antiwar were an RS, I think the WP:SYNTH argument would be a bit of a red herring in this case because the ADL and JTA citations are the same as the ones used by HaCohen in his article and as such they aren't necessary. I don't think BLP applies as HaCohen is entitled to his opinions just like Gerald M. Steinberg, whose outspoken views are often included when they are published by RS. I guess one way to go is take the proposed content to the reliable sources noticeboard with just the antiwar.com article citation and ask for feedback. The site has come up a number of times before. It would be better to base content on sources that clearly qualify an RS though. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this Chicago Jewish News article may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There have been charges that the ADL takes a selective stance towards the many forms of discriminations, being most vocal against anti-Semitism and most passive towards anti-Arab and Islamophobic views. And the entry should note such criticism exists, specially if one considers how overly sympathetic and acritical the entry, as it currently stands, is towards its subject. But based on Sean.hoyland's point, I won't push for the insertion of HaCohen's views anymore. His (Sean.h's) was much more valid than Jayjg's objections. Jayjg appears to have been in a hurry when he read HaCohen's article, as he accused me of creating an argument by means of synthesis, not noticing that HaCohen himself had made the argument on that article, and also that the additional sources put on paragraph he himself had used in his text. Also noteworthy is how any criticism of the organization and its members would've been rendered impossible if Jayjg's interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines were to be followed to the letter, as even criticism common to the public political discourse, such as charges of hypocrisy and double standards, he says is too much if applied to the article's subject. In any event, there are, as I said before, other venues where similar objections towards ADL and Abraham Foxman have been raised, venues that I know are considered RS or otherwise noteworthy. An example is Yoav Shamir's Defamation, a documentary, which this articles even fails to mention, focusing on what its author believes is the ADL's self-serving exploitation of anti-Semitism; another, an article on the opinion section of AJE, written in the wake of Andreas Breivik's shooting of Norwegian youth, stating the ADL and Foxman have incited Islamophobia to advance their own goals as a pro-Israel advocacy group. I intend to use those and other sources that I may come to find -- sources that this time I will try and verify if they meet RS standards --, taking care to let it clear they are but individuals' or groups' opinions, in order to include less positive perspectives on the ADL other than those already on the laconic Criticism section. Guinsberg (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "1930-1940 The World and ADL Were Changing..." History of the ADL. ADL.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League/Archive_6&oldid=1079510861"