Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Molloy (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 6 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Previous discussion are archived here:

Talk:Anti-Defamation League/archive1

Origin of the ADL

The ADL originally formed in response to the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia on a trumped up murder charge of killing Mary Phagan. Ironically, the Frank case, which eventually led to the establishment of the Anti-Defamation League, also resulted in the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, then known as "the Knights of Mary Phagan".

This contradicts the official history of the ADL (link on article), which has the lynching happening in 1915 and the ADL forming in 1913. Does anyone have a source that contradicts the official history? Martin
This passage was added by [user:64.12.96.238], whose last edit was at the end of January, so I don't really see a way of verifying these claims. --snoyes 19:37 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Claims of bias

This a deeply biased pro Anti Defamation League article. FearÉÍREANN 21:40 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, it is biased. The unconscious assumption of those that have contributed to it is that it is desirable and good to fight against anti-Semitism, against racism, against Jew-hatred, against Muslim-hatred, etc. What is the specific problem? The discussion of the ADL files, journalism and the court case? The overly brief discussion regarding the African National Congress? (I remember watching Nelson Madela on television state that he fully supported the PLO because they supported him.) What are the specific points you would like to see addressed? RK
You might be considered a partial observer, RK - your comments above appear to imply that you're a member of said organisation... :)
Say, is it true that you can only be a full member of the ADL if you're a Jewish male? Martin
No, I am not a member of the ADL. I am wondering, however how you could have heard such an odd version of ADL membership rules! It is not the ADL, but rather Louis Farrakhan's anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-woman Nation of Islam that only allows male black Muslims to join as full members, and attend all meetings. Black Muslim females only have partial rights in this group; non-blacks are forbidden from joining at all. How can this fact about the Nation of Islam (which has been widely reported in the press and acknowledge by NOI members themselves) have been misinterpreted as the requirements of ADL membership? BTW, The ADL has Christian and Jewish, male and female, members. The fight against hatespeech is something that the ADL wants all people to join. They are the exact opposite of extremist hatespeech groups like the Naziz, the NOI, the Christian Identity Movement, etc. RK
You stated above "Many people in the ADL [...] engage in all of these activities. I myself have participated..." - I thought you were using yourself as an example of a member of the ADL. Obviously not - my mistake :)
The rumour I heard was that one could only be a full member if one fulfilled additional criteria. Never mind - I'll go research and see if I can dig up anything, and add something to the article either way. Martin 22:38 17 May 2003 (UTC)

ADL is not a pro-Israel political activist group

The article claims "With the decline of overt anti-Semitism in the U.S., the ADL has increasingly focused on pro-Israel activism." Really? Could someone provide a source? Because the great majority of what the ADL deals with has little or nothing to do with political support of the State of Israel. This claim seems like the paranoid claims seen on many Islamist and anti-Semitic websites, which promote the idea that Jews use the ADL to unduly influence the US government. RK

Did the person who added this section ever actually read ADL bulletins and press releases, and go to meeting with ADL representatives? In actuality, they deal with all of the following subjects: Anti-Semitism, Black-Jewish Relations, Christian-Jewish Relations, Civil Rights Discrimination, Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, Hate Crimes, Nazis, Holocaust Denial ,Internet, Islamic Extremist groups, Israel and the Middle-East, Militias, Nation of Islam, Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups, Religious Freedom, Church-State issues, Supreme Court issues, Terrorism, the United Nations and Vatican-Jewish Relations. In point of fact, support of the State of Israel is just one small part of what they deal with. RK 22:38, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the following questionable content from the article:
With the decline of overt anti-Semitism in the U.S., the ADL has increasingly focused on pro-Israel activism. In the view of many people this strategy means that the ADL has moved away from its original purpose as a defender of human dignity to become an overtly partisan political lobbying organisation.'
This content states dubious premises as though they were facts, then draws a very controversial conclusion based on those dubious premises. Even if this content were attributed to a noteworthy individual or organization, it would have no place in the introductory paragraph of an article about the ADL. The only exception would be if this questionable content could be attributed to the ADL itself. Even then, it would have to be qualified as the ADL's self-reflective POV. -- NetEsq 16:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
... ok, both of those comments are good, NetEsq. I added a simple statement that the ADL also offers political support to Israel, which should be uncontroversial? Martin 21:15, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Uncontroversial, perhaps, but also redundant. The previous sentence sets forth the ADL's opposition to "anti-Zionism," which I would presume to mean that the ADL supports Zionism, a political stance which I would presume to be identical with providing political support to Israel. Can you think of any other way that someone might interpret the ADL's pro-Zionist political stance? -- NetEsq 21:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, see [1]. The third point is Zionist: "Israel has a right to exist". But the other points: "Israel has demonstrated its sincere desire for peace" and "There is no excuse for Palestinian terrorism" - One can believe (or not) in those statements independantly of one's belief in the "right to exist". The ADL's support for Israel goes beyond its opposition to anti-Zionism.

Do you jackasses ever even read an ADL press release? Almost a full 1/3 of their press releases deal with Israel. They have an entire portion of their website dedicated to showing "pictures of Palestinian terrorism". Go to the website right now, www.adl.org, and tell me that ISRAEL isn't the first word that you see. I just took a brief look, and what do you know, ADL is discussing Israel in 4 of its 18 topics. "Americans continue to strongly support Israel" "Academics protest against Anti-Israel boycott" "The Anti-Israel Divestment Campaign" and "Financial Times' one-sided Approach" (For criticizing Israel). Not pro-israeli my ass.

Zionism and anti-Zionism

Additionally, supporting Zionism is a rather stronger thing than merely opposing anti-Zionism. Similarly, one can oppose anti-communism without supporting communism. Finally, "Zionism" and "anti-Zionism" are frequently misunderstood terms, and jargony. All in all, I don't think many people would make the leap from opposing anti-Zionism to, say, this letter. Martin 19:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<< The ADL's support for Israel goes beyond its opposition to anti-Zionism. >>
That is a matter of opinion. As far as I can tell, taking a stand in opposition to anti-Zionism is -- for all practical purposes -- synonymous with providing political support for the state of Israel. In other words, can you name any organization that has as its stated purpose opposition to anti-Zionism that does not provide political support for Israel? Ultimately, what you are expressing is disagreement with the way that the ADL carries out its advocacy for the state of Israel, which is all well and good, but such criticism must be labeled as criticism and attributed to a noteworthy spokesperson or organization. -- NetEsq 22:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, it is a matter of opinion. Therefore, some readers will feel that "opposes anti-Zionism" is an accurate description of the ADL's activities in this arena. Others will feel that it is not, and for them the additional sentence is worthwhile. I'm mostly in it for the clarity - there is a string of logic from opposing anti-Zionism to supporting Israel, but it passes through a double negative, and I think it's a bit of a mental stretch. --mrd
Leaving in the sentence is not problematic for me, and if it makes the article clearer, so much the better. -- NetEsq 22:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
<< Finally, "Zionism" and "anti-Zionism" are frequently misunderstood terms, and jargony. >>
I wholeheartedly disagree. Zionism is what Zionists do, and anti-Zionism is what anti-Zionists do. Moreover, if people wish to know what Zionism and/or anti-Zionism is, they can follow the hypertext links to the Wikipedia articles on those topics. To wit, the article on anti-Zionism clearly states: "Anti-Zionism is the opposition to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish 'state,' and the conceptual denial of the right for Jews to have their own state. It is the opposite of Zionism, which is the belief that Jewish people have a right to a nation state in the historical Land of Palestine."
Not that clearly, because there's a neutrality dispute over the thing. Then you get folks like Chomsky - from his article - "He has further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days; the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism". Note that the ADL were around prior to that alleged shift. So again, a slight loss of clarity, compared to just saying what they do. --mrd
No doubt there has been a semantic shift in re the use of the terms Zionism and anti-Zionism, just as there has been a shift in re the use of the terms conservative and liberal. These issues can be, should be, and are discussed in the articles on those topics. In the context of the introduction to this article, we need only say that the ADL fights anti-Zionism. -- NetEsq 22:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
<< [O]ne can oppose anti-communism without supporting communism. >>
Apples and oranges. As a historical comparison, I know of no organization which had as its stated purpose opposition to anti-Maoism that did not provide political support for Chairman Mao's communist regime. If by opposing anti-communism you mean opposing McCarthyism, then your analogy falls apart completely. Virtually all opposition to McCarthyism was based on the premise that people were wrongly accused of being communists. Indeed, to this day, people who seek to become American citizens must disavow any loyalty to the communist party in their citizenship applications. -- NetEsq 21:00, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'll chalk that up as a failed analogy then. --mrd

So, I've removed the link to anti-Zionism. That fixes the redundancy. In any case, I suspect that it's slightly suspect to state that the ADL was set up to fight anti-Zionism: cf the original charter, the political scene at the time, and the ADL's early actions. Martin 21:56, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The link to anti-Zionism was an informative and useful link, whereas the assertion that the ADL provides political support to the state of Israel results in a loss of information, something that the linguist Noam Chomsky would describe as a semantic shift unintentionally created by the elimination of a more broad term in favor of a redundant definition. As for why the ADL was set up, I changed the intro to read "that fights anti-Zionism," leaving the redundant definition regarding political support for Israel in place. -- NetEsq 22:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What type of organization is the ADL?

"that fights" is better. It also handles the "array of services" clause, which had a similar issue. Good change.

Leaving in the sentence is not problematic for me

Then we seem to be in heated agreement. Sorry for taking up your time on the matter. Martin 22:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Take a look at the new section I just added. I think it might address your concerns regarding the vagueness of the term anti-Zionism. -- NetEsq 22:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can we call it a "mainstream advocacy organization"? --Uncle Ed 20:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why? --snoyes 20:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Two reasons: Leumi and Viajero. --Uncle Ed 20:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Umm, I don't get it. I know they were involved in some edit war about israel & palestine stuff, but not much more. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? --snoyes 20:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for being elusive and vague. I was referring to some edit summary comments they made during an edit war, but I forget on which page! :-( --Uncle Ed 21:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

ADL files

There are some comments made on the ADL files on the other place used for edits when the wikipedia was down. What was the other place called again?

The are about the eponymous section in the article added in the edit after this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=698780 

(Revision as of 20:59, 24 Feb 2003)

Titled Sections for this Talk Page

I may come back here and put sections in later. The authors of the sections (currently separated by horizontal rules, not section titles) may like to do so themselves.

ADL and mobsters

I moved:

The ADL has been accused of a "you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours" relationship to certain Jewish-surnamed gangland figures: in return for financial contributions, the ADL would shield mobsters from scrutiny, claiming that said mobsters were being persecuted by Anti-Semites. Eyebrows were raised in 1985, when, at a gala affair in Las Vegas, the ADL's "Torch of Liberty" award was presented by Joan Rivers to the Purple Gang's Moe Dalitz.

That kind of charge (esp. by a first-time anon) is going to require a resposible citation.-- Cecropia | Talk 20:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC) (Done. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC))[reply]

In a comment line while editing the article, Cadr writes "Removing weasel words (Chomsky is not acccused by "many" of anti-Semitism))" Cadr, this is just plain false. Among religious Jews, Chomsky is well known as an anti-Semite. A very large percent of Jews consider him a Jew-hater. You can claim that they are wrong, but you cannot claim that they do not exist! You seem totally unaware of how hateful his writings are to many Jewish people, as well to many non-Jewish Americans. RK 22:38, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Classification of the ADL

I have some misgivings about having the ADL article classified under either "Jewish Society" or "Jewish Organizations." The ADL is a political group, and certainly not all Jews would fully embrace its agenda. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, all Jews would not fully embrave the agenda of any one particular Jewish group! Similarly, all Christians would not fully embrace the agenda of any Christian group! In the real world, such unanimous agreement among millions of people is literally impossible. Many Jews don't even agree on what constitutes the Jewish religion; for example, most Orthodox Jews deny that Conservative Judaism is an authentic form of Judaism! But that is not for a Wikipedia article to decide. We can say this: Most American Jews view the ASL, in general, as mainstream; that is not the same as saying that most American Jews would agree with all the details of every one of its positions. The same is true in this regard for all Jewish organizations (and respectively, all Christian organizations, etc.) RK 01:06, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)


Quigleys

Some mention should be made of the Evergreen Colorado smear job. Names to look for: William & Dorothy Quigley, Mitchell & Candace Aronson. Damages paid March 11 2004 by so-called ADL, $12,169,557.61. 142.177.124.153 23:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed the following text:

A February 13, 1970 article in the Los Angeles Times concerned the June 30, 1968 murder of a Klanswoman named Cathy Ainsworth. There was a shootout in front of the Meridian, Mississippi home of ADL official Meyer Davidson. This resulted in the death of Ainsworth and the serious wounding of her associate Thomas A. Tarrants III. Alton Wayne Roberts and six other Klansmen had already been convicted for federal civil rights violations in connection with their infamous murder of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1964. A police file report dated June 10, 1968 by Detective Luke Scarborough, confirms the Los Angeles Times report of the Ainsworth setup, namely that there was a three-way deal between the ADL, FBI, and local police in the matter, for which the ADL had provided the money.

Ok, I have removed the above paragraph because it is really vague. As far as I can tell, this paragraph accuses the ADL of being a good citizen's group by working with the FBI to bring down part of the KKK. What exactly is considered illegal or unethical here? The text is so badly writte that I can't figure this out. RK 14:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

ADL reports

I note that the text I wrote on ADL's reports has been removed. ADL's reports are frequently quoted in the some of the press in sentences such as "25% antisemitic attitudes in country XXX". Therefore, press readership may have an interest in understanding what those studies really measure, and whether the results are actually representative of the phenomenon that the ADL claims to measure (that is, antisemitism).

One issue I raised, even akwardly, is that those questions may not actually measure what the ADL claims to be measuring (that is, antisemitism):

  • For instance, one justification for positive discrimination is that ethnic or religious groups should be represented in the media, business etc... in roughly equal proportion to their representation in the general population. By the very same reasoning, some people may find the number of Jews (or whatever other religion) working in certain socially favored fields "excessive" if it greatly exceeded their proportion in the population, without being antisemitic per se.
  • Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in effect, is calling for Jews in Europe to renounce their citizenship, and claims that this is their duty as Jews. Any person who believes what Prime Minister Sharon says therefore should deduce logically that Jews are less loyal to their country than to Israel. The only other logical deducation is that Prime Minister Sharon is mistaken or not sincere when he discusses the duties of Jews (a strong possibility, surely).
Whoever told you this was lying to you. Prime Minister Sharon did not make this statement. It sounds like someone exagerrated a real quote, and then presented their exagerration totally out-of-context. He did make a statement to the Jews of France, who are suffering from a tremendous wave of anti-Semitism; he said that since they are in danger there (and they really do appear to be in some danger) that they should emigrate to the State of Israel. He has the right to ask, and the people he asks have the right to make up their own minds. In any case, Ariel Sharon doesn't speak for all Jews, let alone all Israelis! He is just one man. RK 00:03, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I won't enter a long discussion on this. Suffices to say that the ADL publishes study that get media attention, but that, objectively speaking, these studies may not actually measure what they claim to measure, because they count as antisemitic answers that can be given in good faith and without any antisemitism. David.Monniaux 07:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-semitic" is a POV term

Like "anti-American", "anti-Semitic" is an inherently POV term which means very different things to different people (depending on background, political persuasian, etc.) It's a fact that there are a number of groups which the ADL considers anti-Semitic, and it is a fact that the ADL has campaigned against them. The wording in my edit does not in any way imply that the ADL are wrong to consider these groups anti-Semitic, and the reader is free to go to the Wikipedia pages on these groups for more information. This page is clearly not the place for a detailed discussion of Nazi/KKK/whoever attitudes towards Jews, still less the place for bald assertions that these groups were anti-Semitic without supporting evidence and without any proper discussion.

Saying that "anti-Semitic" is an inherently POV term is only used by anti-Semites. Watch your attacks carefully. You are clearly pushing anti-Semitic views with your defense of the Nazis and KKK might not be anti-Semitic. That is only pushed by Holocaust-deniers, Christian Idenitity adherents and others who hate Jews. RK 02:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I am (honestly) quite outraged by your accusations. It seems to be impossible to make any kind of argument against one of your edits without suffering such ridiculous ad-homenim attacks. I am clearly not defending that Nazis or anyone else here, I'm just following the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. All of the people/groups on the list are uncontroversially anti-Semitic, but it is a principle of NPOV that opinions (however widely held) should be attributed and not promulgated by Wikipedia itself. It is sufficient for the purpose of this article to say that the ADL considers these groups to be anti-Semitic; it's completely unecessary for Wikipedia to take a stance on whether or not they actually are.
I'd like to emphasise again that you are making very serious charges against me by saying that I am anti-Semitic, and it is a mark of your immaturity, rudeness and arrogance that you feel able to make these charges without evidence extending beyond your paranoia of persecution and discrimination, and soley as a means to avoid engaging with my argument. Cadr 23:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And yes, of course the Nazis, etc. were anti-Semitic by any sane definition of the word, but a widely-accepted POV is still very much a POV. Cadr 23:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Save your apologetics. RK
So if I say that the Nazis were anti-Semites, I'm apologising for them? Bullshit. Cadr 23:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In some cases at least even "the ADL considers X to be anti-Semitic" is a doubtful wording as it implies acceptance of good faith on the part of the ADL. Especially when dealing with issues involving Israel, the correct wording is "the ADL alleges X to be anti-Semitic". --Zero 03:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great edit, Zero, seriously. You cut to the heart of the issue. Good work. RK 12:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I am neutral with regard to considers/alledges. I've used "considers" in my edit, but if "alledges" is preferred I won't object to it being changed. Not sure what RK is getting at here, Zero's suggested wording would be (slightly) less pro-ADL that mine, which apparently verged on anti-Semitism or something. Cadr 23:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was my wording in any case, not Zero's. Jayjg 03:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin,

Why are you deleting critical links of the ADL by white nationalists groups? Since the ADL focuses a substantial part of its web site criticizing white nationalists, why shouldn't we hear the white nationalists view point on the ADL?

You specifically deleted these links

  • [http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.htm SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles]
  • [http://www.solargeneral.com/library/video.html Eight part video series on the ADL]

These links also have critical articles and quotes about the ADL by Jews, not just white nationalists. Your personal biases and emotional attachment to judaism is not allowing for fair and balanced spectrum of view points on the ADL

This is what defines Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Ethnocentrism, whether or not you are a Jew or a "lackey" (for a lack of a better word) and is unfair and biased to allow alternative view points. Allow all view points.

Dnagod 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are expected to cite their sources, and may only use organizations or publications deemed reputable, authoritative, credible, and relevant. White supremacist websites are none of these regarding an article on the ADL. These websites might be useable as primary-source material on articles about white supremacism, fascism, or neo-Nazis, but they're useless as secondary sources. Speaking of personal biases, are you a member of Stormfront? SlimVirgin 01:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


Your personal bias and emotional attachment to judaism is clear, since you feel it necessary to throw around the nazi card.

http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.htm

is a valid link which has many articles in it written by Jews, if you persist in deleting these links I will bring it forward for arbitration. Just because a web site owner is white does not make the links and material invalid.

  • [http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.htm SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles]
  • [http://www.solargeneral.com/library/video.html Eight part video series on the ADL]

stays, and if you wish to delete it, I will bring it forth for arbitration. You are abusing your powers and should have your admin privileges revoked.

Dnagod 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, wasn't it you who kept throwing around the "personal bias and emotional attachment to judaism" card? Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This controversy seems to be possible because Wikipedia doesn't really have a strong policy on the meaning or use of external links -- when they are appropriate, what their role is in the article, and so on.

Wikipedia:External links states that they should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references. Meta, however, answers the question Meta:When should I link externally? with Not very often and goes on to distinguish Wikipedia from link-farms, Web directories, and so forth.

The issue of usefulness of an external link is orthogonal to the issue of NPOV. An external link needs to be a reference to something broadly useful and informative on the subject. So if the purpose of referring to the opinions of anti-semites and neo-Nazis here is simply to document their views, then this should be done as an inline citation rather than an external link. Take, for instance, this entirely fictional example:

The gay neo-Nazi organization Aryan Bears of California coined the phrase "green Zionist moose-squirrels" to refer to the ADL, which has since caught on among other gay white-supremacist groups. [2]

One frequently-observed pattern not described in Wikipedia:External links is to link to an organization's Web site from the article describing that organization. This is, I suspect, chiefly done because the organization's Web site does a better job than anyone else can do in documenting the organization's own point of view. Thus, Stormfront links to that group's Web site, just as this article links to the ADL.

We need to judge external links based on their informativeness as well as on NPOV. We would not want to link to badly-researched material simply out of a desire to present "all sides of the story". External links are there for the benefit of the reader, not the benefit of the sites or views linked to. It should be noted that an external link is never a replacement for adequate discussion of a relevant subject in Wikipedia. Presently, this article does not do a good enough job of describing the history of the ADL and its actions. Linking to other sites on any side of a controversy is no substitute for doing good research and writing factual material here in Wikipedia. --FOo 23:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title

The ADL is a Jewish-American org, as demonstrated through it's policy, directives and membership / employment base.

The title "American org" is misleading, and should be removed.

  • It's an American organization. Guess what: Jews in America are Jews are Americans, and identify themselves as such. Get used to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Jews work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America." ~ George Washington, from Maxims of George Washington

The NAACP is an african american organisation, the ADL is an american jewish organisation. End of story. --Molloy

Could the editors who keep adding that it's a Jewish organization say (a) what are the benefits to the article of adding this information to the intro; and (b) in what sense it's a Jewish organization, and what their sources are. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 04:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they think that the ADL is circumcised and only eats kosher? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I might feel a little easier debating with User:Molloy were he not the editor who tried to insert this [3] into Zionism. SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please note, Molloy and 222.153.2.164 are the same editor. As such, his claim to "agree with the previous edit" is disingenuous. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ADL is an american-jewish organization, as quoted by the California Courier, and other major newspapers worldwide [4]. It is rather misleading to quote the organization as an "American" and american only organization when it has nothing (or mainly) but Jewish interests in mind.

The California Courier is a "major newspaper"? Why do its alleged interests make it any less "American"? Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Molloy, the ADL has also acted or carried out research with regard to gay marriages, immigration issues, and Guantanamo, as examples. I've just read some material you've posted on various websites, some of it none too pleasant, and if you're telling the truth about your age, you're still in your teens, which has softened my feelings toward you a little. I'd urge you to start reading, because the people you're dealing with are misleading you, and you in turn are unwittingly misleading others. A good place to start is Primo Levi's If This is a Man, and then The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945 by Lucy S. Dawidowicz. Please read with an open mind and an open heart what bigotry leads to. You're too young to be full of hate. That's all I'm going to say. SlimVirgin 08:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on how and what to think, perhaps you should read these: [5], [6] -Molloy

  • SlimVirgin -- "Don't bother wrestling with a pig. You end up covered with mud, and the pig enjoys it." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess you think I'm just another "...stupid goyim, over whom, with our superior intelect, we shall rule for all eternity" (Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich). -Molloy

  • No, I think you're sadly deluded -- especially since you're invoking a quote that you've been informed repeatedly is fraudulent. (Onlookers unaware of Molloy's history can take a look at Talk:Zionism#Zionism and Non-Jews). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with calling the ADL a Jewish organization. That calling it a Jewish organization is being advocated by an anti-semite is neither here nor there. It is a Jewish organization, and there's no reason not to have that in the first paragraph. Also, Lucy Davidowicz is an awful, awful historian. john k 03:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is she really? I've heard very good things about her, and I love her work, though I'm not a historian myself, so perhaps can't judge. What is it that is regarded as not good about her? SlimVirgin 05:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just to make an argument, I'll note that the ADL is connected to B'nai B'rith, a major Jewish organization, and that its principle purpose as defined by itself is to fight anti-semitism. I'm not sure how it could be seen as not a Jewish organization. john k 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The ADL was set up by B'nai B'rith, but it has since moved away from it, and it's purpose is to fight anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry and various forms of political extremism. What, in your view, makes something a "Jewish" organization? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its slogan on their website is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people...to secure justice and fair treatment for all." The mission statement on their website is "The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people." Every single description of it mentions anti-semitism first, and then very vague general "bigotry" as a problem second. It was clearly founded in the first place to oppose anti-semitism - its other activities are a corollary to this. It is an organization founded by Jews, still largely composed of Jews, whose primary purpose is to oppose anti-semitism, specifically. More broadly, it conceives itself as an opponent of racism and bigotry generally. But this is very, very clearly secondary. Now, I'm not necessarily sure that it should be described as a "Jewish organization", but I don't think that, as short-hand, this description is at all misleading or wrong. john k 18:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, the ADL is active in a number of areas other than fighting anti-Semitism, as can be seen from the amicus curiae briefs it has filed; I've posted a few of these below. Also, bear in mind that Molloy is not editing in good faith. He is a youth organizer of the New Zealand National Front and has posted anti-Semitic material on the Web. While I accept your argument above that authorial intention does not always matter, I argue that sometimes it does, and that this is one of those cases. Because it isn't clear what is meant by a Jewish organization or what adding that contributes to the article, an examination of the author's intention is helpful; and to judge by his editing pattern here and his online posts, his intentions are invariably anti-Semitic.
  • Alexander v. Sandoval (121 S. Ct. 1511 (2001)): The question at issue in this case was whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives private citizens the right to challenge policies that have the effect of discriminating against minorities but not necessarily the intent to do so. As amicus curiae, ADL maintained that Title VII was intended to prevent discrimination without creating the burden of proving discriminatory intent. Unfortunately, the Court held that private citizens have a legal recourse only in instances of intentional discrimination.
  • Virginia v. Black (2002): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.
  • Grutter v. Bolinger (2003): Grutter v. Bollinger concerns the constitutionality of racial preferences in undergraduate and law school admissions system of the University of Michigan. While recognizing the fundamental value of diversity in higher education, ADL stated its opposition to the University of Michigan's admissions programs to achieve that goal.
  • Lawrence v. Texas (2003): This case raises the twin questions whether Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ADL joined with a number of other organizations to argue that the Texas law violates is unconstitutionally because it seeks . . . to punish and brand as criminals a class of citizens because of their sexual orientation. SlimVirgin 19:06, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware that Molloy is a Nazi. I suppose I'll withdraw my objection, since I suppose you're right that a "Jewish American organization" is unclear in meaning. although I'll note that I certainly have not denied that the ADL is involved in things besides opposing anti-semitism. But it is certainly very clear that opposing anti-semitism is the principal declared purpose of the organization. john k 21:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I think that is indeed the main point; what is an "American-Jewish" organization, and what does that information add to the article? Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Nazi? Wow, thats news to me! I prefer the term: "White Nationalist", there is a big difference you know... - Molloy

Actually, the differences are minor and superficial. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Young

I removed the anon editor's edit about Andrew Young: "In 1979 after receiving pressure created by harsh public criticism from the ADL, the first Black UN Ambassador, Andrew Young was forced to resign." He resigned because U.S. officials were not supposed to speak to the PLO (or at least that was the official position), and he did, though he said he did it with State Dept knowledge. If the ADL was particularly instrumental in forcing his resignation, that would probably need a reference. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the ADL was behind getting Hilliard and McKinney out of office also needs references, preferably statements against them by the ADL, and proof the ADL led the campaign. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Jews never did nothin' to nobody." [7] [8] [9] --Powergrid 16:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I looked at your links; none of them indicate that the ADL was involved in a campaign against either of these people. In the second link Foxman comments on the tension. In the third one the ADL issues a statement condemning a statement by McKinney's father. Please provide something that actually backs up your claims. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, but they should go into the article, not here. Also, the references need to be reputable and must say what you're claiming they say; I think two of your sources indicate that the ADL expressed views on those issues but you're implying that Hilliard and McKinney lost because of the ADL. You would need a source that also says or implies that, or else you should reword the claim. I still couldn't see where the ADL is blamed for Andrew Young's resignation; sorry if I missed it. It's also best to link to the NYT for an NYT article rather than to a third-party website, if possible.

I'm also not sure about this sentence: "The ADL has engaged the Black supremacist group, the Nation of Islam in public discord since the 1984 U.S. Presidential campaign." The NOI is separatist but is it a black supremacist group? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam preaches black supremacy. See the article, and read their own sources. They view white people as evil demons created by genetic experiments. RK
Elijah Muhammad used to preach it but Farrakhan's trying to move away from all that. I've not been able to find a reputable source calling them supremacists, so we probably shouldn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Farrakhan and his many lieutenants still preach it now. They preach it at college campuses in New York, as recently as this year. And a vast number of sources explicitly identify the Nation of Islam as a black supremacist group. The NOI itself publicly preaches that blacks are superior to whites. Why in the world are you claiming otherwise? RK 03:24, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried to remove the "supremacist" line a couple times, but it got muddled up with other changes and I got distracted. There's no reason to characterize NOI that way; let the reader decide. As far as those links Powergrid is using as references: this page has been repeatedly defaced with attempts to talk about the so-called "American Defense League", an unashamedly anti-semitic website; as such, they have no validity as references to anything whatsoever. (Actually, the American Defense League is more than anti-semitic; the owner is a true nutcase. Jews at anti-American Autodesk, Inc. have American blood on their hands -- this because Autodesk won a domain-name-squatting case against the owner. Nutcase.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More importantly, the links don't even claim, much less prove, what the editor is claiming. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've removed supremacist and didn't replace it with separatist, because I'm not sure that's right either, so I just left it as Nation of Islam. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
But they are an explicitly black supremacist group. Have you ever actually read any of their books, or been to any of their lectures on college campuses? I have, and I cannot find any relationship between what they actually preach, and what you imagine (or wish) they preach. RK 03:24, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
We have to go with what the reputable references say. If you can find a good source calling them a supremacist group, then it'd be okay to add that, but it would have to be a non-partisan source. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Here they're referred to as separatist and supremacist. [10] SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Our own Nation of Islam article uses separatist. It seems more neutral than "supremacist". Maybe it's just me, but "supremacist" has a slightly pejorative tinge to my ears. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Our Black supremacy article says: "In part due to [an] inconsistency in dogma over time, most historians and social scientists classify the Nation of Islam as simply a black nationalist, or black separatist, organization. Recently, however, the Southern Poverty Law Center headed by Morris Dees placed the Nation of Islam on its list of hate groups. Tom Metzger, the former Grand Dragon of the California KKK and the head of the White Aryan Resistance, said of the Nation of Islam after attending one of their rallies, "They are the black counterpart to us."
Given the above, we could go with either supremacist or separatist, though I'd prefer separatist. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Blood of the chosen"

In case you're wondering where MeanMrMustard got the idea that "B'nai Brith" meant "blood of the chosen", you need look no farther than jewwatch.com [11] Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jew Watch versus Counterpunch

I replaced Jpgordon's link to a Jew Watch article with an article from Counterpunch regarding ythe ADL spying scandal. Jpgordon then deletes my link saying that Counterpunch is not journalistic, but is a piece of advocacy. Please go ahead and use Jew Watch as your source. Sorry for trying to help. --Powergrid 04:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quality sources with credible information from respected sources are a must. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Jpgordon's logic is to delete the articles and/or links on the basis that they are advocacy, the majority of the "ADL position statements" links will have to be purged as well as they are certainly advocacy for their position alone. --205.188.116.200 12:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the ADL, its advocacy papers are entirely appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ANC is not an anti-apartheid organization

According to Jayjg's edit summary, the African National Congress, the most well-recognized anti-apartheid organization in the world, is not really an anti-apartheid organization. Further, it's unclear to Jayjg how the fact that the ADL spied on the ANC and turned that information over to the apartheid South African government had a negative impact on black-jewish relations. Really, please excuse us for trying to improve your encyclopedia. Go ahead with your little project. --Powergrid 04:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you misread what Jayjg actually said: The ANC is not the anti-Apartheid movement, and it's not clear this affected Jewish-Black relations. In other words, he's asserting that ADL has had diferences with the ANC, not the anti-Apartheid movement per se; if you wish to present that the ADL and the anti-Apartheid movement were at odds, educate us -- provide us with some sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the African National Congress was the world wide leader of the anti-apartheid movement and as such are synonymous with the movement. --205.188.116.200 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Synecdoche, though often attractive rhetorically, is not a useful method for encyclopedic presentation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right again. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayig and jpgordon for some odd reason would like to hide or CENSOR the facts that the ADL not only spied on but actively opposed the African National Congress and several other anti-apartheid organizations to the delight of the South African apartheid dictators. In response to the rediculous question of what this has to do with Black-Jewish relations (as if Jewish-Black relations are limited to U.S. borders), the ANC is a Black organization and this demonstrates the ADL's relationship with them.. the same way they related to the other Black organizations and leaders they labled anti-Semitic. --64.12.116.195 02:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • No, what we've been doing is deleting your links to holocaust denier websites and opinion pieces. As I've said already repeatedly, please provide factual references rather than opinion pieces. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to Jpgordon's comments, I note that the article actually has a whole section describing this, so the facts are certainly not being hidden or censored. As well, please don't speculate about what effect this had on Black-Jewish relations; instead cite a encyclopedic source which comments on it. Jayjg (talk) 14:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The ADL labeled the predominantly Black organizations, ANC and NOI as anti-Semitic (not to mention illegally spying on and working against them). They labeled Rev. Jesse Jackson an anti-Semite, they threatened to financially wreck the NAACP for working with Louis Farrakhan, they harshly criticized long-time Black Congressional Caucus member Rep. Cynthia McKinney, they labeled the most popular Hip Hop mogul Russell Simmons a hypocrite, etc. These in and of themselves are clear and concise examples of a relationship with leaders and organizations that represent millions of Black people.--205.188.116.200 16:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of claims

I removed the following grossly false claim from the article.

During the 2002 election cycle, the ADL, in a letter to the New York Times, harshly criticized long standing Congressional Black Caucus member Cynthia McKinney of Georgia for supporting Palestinian rights.

Folks, this never happened. The ADL has never criticised anyone for supporting the rights of Palestinian Arabs. In fact, many ADL members are also working for the creation of a Palestinian state! Please do not grossly distort what they said about McKinney, and why they made their criticism. RK 17:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Check the record. Either RK is lying or he is grossly misinformed himself! ADL director Abraham Foxman in fact wrote an August 25, 2002 letter to the New York Times making the false accusation that "McKinney went out of her way to attack Israel, causing much pain to supporters of a beleaguered democracy." The fact is that McKinney merely advoacted a more even-handed approach in U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --JohnBlaz 21:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


JohnBlaz is lying! His own quotes prove it. There is nothing there that says that the ADL attacks her an anti-Semite because she supports a Palestinian state. One wonders whether JohnBlaz can even read English! RK 02:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's the entire letter:
To the Editor:
Re For Black Politicians, 2 Races Suggest a Rise of New Tactics (news article, Aug. 22):
Considering the long history of financial and other support by American Jews for black candidates, it was disturbing to read Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson's criticism of contributions by Jews to the primary campaign of Denise Majette in Georgia.
After all, outside support was vital in furthering the civil rights movement, and Jews played an important role.
Since both candidates in this race were African-Americans, this was not a racial issue. It was a case where one candidate, Representative Cynthia A. McKinney, went out of her way to attack Israel, causing much pain to supporters of a beleaguered democracy. It is also clear that her constituents turned her out of office for many reasons, including her extreme comments about Sept. 11.
ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
New York, Aug. 22, 2002

Um, so what? None of the above proves JohnBlaz's point! Nothing in this letter says that the ADL attacked someone as an anti-Semite merely because they support a Palestinian state. Can he even read English? RK 02:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • If we're going to mention the McKinney thing at all in this article, it makes no sense that it be in the section entitled "Relations with Blacks", unless it's supposed to mean with individual black people, as opposed to the blacks per se. It's also a POV rather than a statement of fact that this condemnation was because of "support for the Palestinian people". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which is why I've removed the POV and nonsensical paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Jayig and jpgordon, this reference is "nonsensical" from your personal POV because you two are obviously very fond of the ADL and desire to present the best face for the organization. Be that as it may, Cynthia McKinney is considered a leader of and held in high esteem by a large amout of Blacks. Now you may choose to modify the paragragh to make it clear but there is no reason at all to delete it simply based your warm and fuzzy sentiments for the ADL. On another note, I believe Ms. McKinney directly referenced the ADL in response to their attacks on her and I can try to locate her quotes and post them to the article if you (or others reading this) think that is neccessary. --JohnBlaz 17:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dude, most black Americans have never even heard of her. What planet are you writing from? RK
  • The section is "Relations with Blacks". The McKinney issue was not at all about her being black; she was targeted because of her opinions, not because of her race, as has been repeatedly stated. Try to resist making ad hominem arguments here, while you're at it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As jpgordon points out, the issue with McKinney was her opinions not her ethnicity, and the ADL had no issues with the person who defeated her, who was also black, so this clearly isn't a "black-ADL" thing. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons provided for deleting this paragraph are nonsense. This section of the article deals with the ADL's relations with Blacks including Black political leaders. The fact that the ADL backed one Black leader to replace another Black leader does not make this reference irrelevant.--JohnBlaz 21:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to put in the ADL's relations with every individual black person now? This is about the ADL's relationship with the black community. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jay, your flat out wrong. This is about their relations w black people, this woman is a signifigant black person, and its important to keep a reference to it here, at least until we have so many of such cases as to create a spin-off page to catalog such. Sam Spade 06:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant nonsense inserted for the purposes of promoting an agenda. But as long as its in there, it will at least have the complete story. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I don't understand. Since when is diagreeing with one black person an attack on the black community?! There are whacko blacks out there, just as there are whacko whites out there. Criticising someone who happens to be white (or black) simply has nothing to do with relations with the white (or black) community. Please do not fall for these transparent attempts to create hostility between all blacks and all Jews by a troll. RK 02:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Irving

69.217.126.180, you're just trying to cause trouble now. Criticism of the ADL is legitimate but David Irving is a discredited source, and in any event, his personal website has no bearing on this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, the ADL is a discredited and known biased source across the world. To allow 5 ADL links on Irving's page and not allow even one here, when Irving has been the ADL's target and vice-versa, smacks of hypocrisy. You have bias as an administrator, it is very clear from reviewing your past activity on Wikipedia, and your actions here.

The ADL should not be seen as a "credible" source on Wikipedia when discussing its declared enemies. That's absurd, and you know it. What's next, we let Osama Bin Laden have links to the USA article?

SlimVirgin has been accused before of personal bias

SlimVirgin: YOU ARE DISCREDITED. PERIOD.

You have been deliberately causing problems on this article before, and you continue today. Do you intend to discriminate against all people who post to this article that which you do not personally like? Is this "your" article? It appears you think it is:

Previously posted about SlimVirgin:

Censorship of critical links on the ADL

Dear SlimVirgin, Why are you deleting critical links of the ADL by white nationalists groups? Since the ADL focuses a substantial part of its web site criticizing white nationalists, why shouldn't we hear the white nationalists view point on the ADL?

You specifically deleted these links 

   * SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles
   * Eight part video series on the ADL

These links also have critical articles and quotes about the ADL by Jews, not just white nationalists. Your personal biases and emotional attachment to judaism is not allowing for fair and balanced spectrum of view points on the ADL

69.217.126.180: "For all your hard work in keeping Jewish propaganda out of Wikipedia, I hereby award you the ancient Defender of the Wiki barnstar, which is given to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to stop Wikipedia being used for fraudulent purposes." --Wikipdea readers

  • You have been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. But you're right -- we're biased on Wikipedia against white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and racists in general. Get used to it; it's not going to change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPGordon: Wikipedia should not allow jewish supremacists or jewish racists like your dishonest little tag-team of "Jewish-first" posters: SlimVirgin, jayjg, Jpgordon, et al. You make yourselves look ridiculous, and it reflects poorly on you al. I will not devote my life to propaganda like you do. I feel sorry for you so involved in racism and revision. You are the ones involved, your tag-team proves it. Wikipedia should ban you guys, period.

I agree. Thanks for saying it. They are shameless Jewish propagandists and they should be banned from Wikipedia and from life in general. Do your part and ban a Jew every day. Shun them, boycott them, mistreat them and abuse them at every opportunity. I do and I think of Jayjg every time I do it. --24.30.67.158 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, of course, I'm the reason for your anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Jayjg resorts to using "slurs" against other Wikipedians. How typical. Jayjg should be banned. Jayjg is a jewish supremacist, nothing more. It's clear for all to see.


SectNPOV: "Fighting anti-Zionism"

"The ADL holds that a modern and common form of anti-Semitism is the statement that Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism."

This opening run-on sentence and the following text is far from NPOV. Both the tone and the message are very much pro-ADL. It is clearly asserting a pro-ADL position and not fairly presenting both sides of this issue. --Blackcats 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the ADL "holds" something, that means it is the ADL's position, not an undisputed fact. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was quite aware that the sentence in question was phrased as the ADL's postion. Stating the ADL's position is not the problem. The problem is that the rest of the section reads like a persuasive essay defending that position. Not to mention that it's a very akward run-on sentence.
The underlying issue here is that some of the editors here seem detirmined to avoid having any sort of frank discussion in the article about the ADL's advocacy for Israel. The organization goes so far as to post an article on their website entitled "Advocating for Israel" [12], but from reading some of the talk page here some of the editors don't want the article to state that the ADL does indeed advocate for Israel. I can see no good NPOV reason that the article should not state just that. Here is a basic draft of how such an NPOV section might begin:
"Advocating for Israel is a major mission of the ADL. The League is stronly committed to defending Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state as a basic civil right of the Jewish people, and feels much criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Some anti-Zionists have charged that the ADL uses charges of anti-Semitism to chill critism of Isreal. The ADL feels that such allegations are often themselves anti-Semitic, and maintains that it only condmemns anti-Semitic attacks against Isreal and never tries to stifle reasonable criticism."
Blackcats 05:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SectNPOV: "Collaboration with South Africa's Apartheid Regime"

This section does a fairly good job of stating the facts of what happened, but it very much one-sided in the commentary it presents. Mr. Foxman's defence of ADL's actions is included, but no critism of ADL is. There are numerous people on the other side of this issue who have said that the ADL's collaboration with an overtly racist state calls into question its status as a civil rights organization. --Blackcats 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who are they, and what did they say? Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will find specific quotes and post them here shortly. --Blackcats 03:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SectNPOV: "The ADL files controversy"

Again - a fairly decent recounting of the facts, but only one side of the argument is presented. We hear Mr. Foxman's defence of the ADL's actions, but nobody's crticism is cited. As with the section above, many notable people have harshly criticized the ADL over this, and in particular pointed to their keeping files on the NAACP and other such groups as calling into question the ADL's status as a civil rights organization. --Blackcats 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is pretty critical of the ADL; are you sure you read the whole section? Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes - I did read the whole section. And I did not see much of any crticism of the ADL. Rather I saw a fairly neutral recounting of the facts followed by Foxman's defence. I do feel that the facts speak for themselves in terms of making the ADL look bad, but that is not the same as criticism, which is needed in order to balance the defence argument. --Blackcats 04:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section includes eight links to the ADL's website, but not a single link to a website specifically devoted to opposing the ADL. Several articles are included in the crticism section, though many of the links have poor titles. Notably missing is the ADL Watch website [13], a site specifically devoted to criticising the ADL. I would be bold and add it to the top of the criticism section, but alas the article is "protected." --Blackcats 03:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see at least 10 links highly critical of the ADL; in fact, I see a whole section of links critical of the ADL. Why is adlwatch.org particularly notable? Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whenever a site exists specifically to oppose one organization or business, that, in and of itself, is noteworthy. (Unless of course other sites exist with the same specific purpose.) For example, the Google article links to Google Watch, though of course the latter is much less noteworthy than Google. So this site needs to be included unless someone can find another website that does nothing but criticize the ADL. --Blackcats 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty trivial site -- fewer than 200 references to it on the web, no Alexa presence -- and basically it's just a page full of links to other sites. Woo hoo. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
612 Google hits. [14]--Blackcats 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, 231 once you get rid of all the Google ghosts. Thanks for helping make Jpgordon's point; a trivial site. Just the kind of unencyclopedic site, in fact, that would like to increase its web presence by getting a link on a Wikipedia page. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still argue that it's notable. If you google ADL and criticism, the ADL Watch site shows up in the first ten (out of 286,000) results. [15] --Blackcats 19:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it successfully manages to come up fairly high on the list using specific search terms in no way indicates notability. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP

Let me shine some light on the issue for Wikipedians: The tag-team is back to its dirty tricks in attempting to prohibit open input. This is their "pet" issue, and hence the bias. User:69.209.197.182

Whilst that is true, it is not helpful to just say it like that; you need to make constructive edits. You recently edited SlimVirgin's user page and mine, both times with accusations of pro-Jewish bias. This is true in her case, and false in mine. However, whether it is true or not, you need to make more constructive comments. Additionally, editing people's user pages is usually considered vandalism; you should make comments on talk pages. Someone is likely to block your IP address if you carry on like this. That would be a pity. I advise you to start a Wikipedia user account and make helpful edits from it. — Helpful Dave 10:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree - it's true that a number of the editors here have a very strong pro-Israel and Zionist bias. But slinging around phrases like "Jewish supremacist" is counter productive and just makes you look extreme. More over, such a claim is typically hard to verify. With jayjg for example, a quick look at his comments on various talk pages makes it clear that he does have a very strong pro-Israel bias. But extrapolating from that the he must be a "Jewish supremacist" is pure speculation. Many Zionist settlers (as with other settler-colonists) have felt a strong superiority over the Palestinians. But did they feel superior to all other peoples? Most Zionist Jews who I've known here in the U.S. didn't have any strong sense of supremacy over Christian or atheist Americans. Often they do have strong feelings of cultural pride and identity, but usually not anywhere near the level that it would be considered "supremacy." At any rate, it's most constructive to criticize the behavior in question, rather than making ungrounded speculation as to why. And like H.D. said, you should go ahead and sign up for a user account here so that you can participate in votes and such. --Blackcats 16:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The Jewish "tag-team" slings around overused and inaccurate terms like "white supremacist", "nazi" like it's a reflex, so on that basis alone it might be excused for them. Not one person who has slurred anon can back it up. The conduct of Jpgordon, jayjg, SlimVirgin can be observed and tracked on Wikipedia, and it exhibits classic [Supremacism], in this case: Jewish supremacism. Reread the definition before claiming it's not accurate. If anyone isn't helpful, it's posters like Jpgordon, SlimVirgin and jayjg that use slurs, bias and attempt censorship. 69.209.198.24 18:23 30 Apr 2003 (UTC) (anon's unsigned sig added)
I don't think it's fair or helpful to speculate for the benefit of abusive anon IPs on who may or may not have certain biases. What matters is who is editing in good faith and adhering to policy. This anon IP does not edit in good faith. He first came to our attention trying to defend David Irving of all people, then trying to add Irving's personal website to other articles, using a number of IP addresses and bragging that he gets a different one each time he reboots and that therefore he's unstoppable. He hasn't made a single useful or intelligent edit and there's no indication so far that he's capable of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. It's rather disappointing to see editors who should know better supporting anonymous IPs who have done little except vandalise User pages and personally attack Wikipedia editors in their time here on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin is abusive to many Wikipedians and has been criticized for it by many others. It can be verified. I am not the first person SlimVirgin has abused. The anon IP person is new to Wikipedia and learning, and learning fast how it works. One criticism that the anon has observed is that a group can circumvent the 3R rule and do multiple reverts by acting as a gang of activists. That much I learned the first day. Too bad for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin, you are wrong. Nobody has bragged about an IP provider that assigns new IP addresses each time. That's just the way it occurs. SlimVirgin, if anyone is bragging, it is those who are so very intent on "banning" someone from contributing. Wikipedia is open to editing from all people. An ADL article is not the private domain of a handful of Jewish activists and polemicists. There exists criticism of the ADL from multiple groups in the USA and overseas. 69.209.198.24 18:23 30 Apr 2003 (UTC) (anon's unsigned sig added)
Also, I'd like to point out that having a strong POV and making sure it's accurately represented in articles in a NPOV way is not mutually exclusive from good faith editing, and in fact, the best articles are a collaboration of reasonable articulate editors who represent various and opposing POVs while adhering to policy. I would challenge any editor with a strong POV to be able to produce a list like User:Jayjg/Edits, which demonstrates one editor's (Jayjg) good faith efforts and adherence to policy even on behalf of opposing POVs. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If someone has a strong POV and makes sure it's accurately represented, then it should help the article, as in this case, with legitimate criticism of the ADL. This article is on lock-down because of the lack of reasonble input from others with an equally accurate and documentable POV's, and once again, by the censorship of Jewish-centric activists. 69.209.198.24 18:23 30 Apr 2003 (UTC) (anon's unsigned sig added)
Let's stick to the point: that this anon user shouldn't vandalise Wikipedia etc. It weakens our argument if we make the false claim that Jayjg's bias doesn't skew his editing. Hats off for User:Jayjg/Edits by the way; a fabulous bit of propaganda. — Helpful Dave 19:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The anon has likewise noted the vandalism of SlimVrigin, Jpgordon, and jayjg. 69.209.198.24 18:23 30 Apr 2003 (UTC) (anon's unsigned sig added)
Everyone has a bias that skews their editing. The challenge stands for any other editor to be able to produce a similar list of edits done on behalf of their opposing view. If all editors made efforts to edit fairly this way, it would lead to more balance and collaboration. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
What other editor would need to produce such a list? — Helpful Dave 20:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are many editors around especially on contentious articles from various sides who hold "strong" POVs who *should* produce such a list but are unable to do so. I think maintaining such a list, in these cases, would help said editors make a conscious effort to be balanced. It helps set one's frame of mind if one is looking out for the opponent's view to be represented fairly, do you agree? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's simply a clever tool to pull out whenever he is criticised for a particular biased edit. It's a sort of reverse ad hominem fallacy: "look, my argument is right because this list proves that I am unbiased". I remain unimpressed. — Helpful Dave 20:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Helpful Dave is finally helpful! Nobody needs to produce a list to contribute to Wikipedia, and a list doesn't mean a damn thing. Longtime users are no more knowledgeable or are no more "entitiled" than newcomers. Even someone on the ADL's full-time payroll like jayjg (just kidding) cannot close-down or claim sole authorship of this article on an open collabortion.

LET'S RECAP THE PURPOSE AND OPEN PROCESS of Wikipedia:

    • "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."
      • "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."
        • Systemic bias

"Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."

          • Editability

"Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

SO SORRY JEWISH SUPREMACISTS, YOU DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. KINDLY REREAD WIKIPEDIA'S MISSION STATEMENT ABOVE OVER AND OVER. GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND READ IT AGAIN. STOP ABUSING OTHERS AND VANDALIZING THEIR INPUT. 69.209.198.24 18:23 30 Apr 2003 (UTC) (anon's unsigned sig added)


Well if the list was used that way to defend a particular edit that violated NPOV policy, I would certainly agree it would be reverse ad hominem, since each edit must stand on its own merits and not on the merits of the editor who is saying it. I haven't seen Jayjg's list misused that way to defend a particular edit, have you? But it is certainly valid to point to the list when editors with opposing POVs (or anon vandals) try to paint him as a POV editor. The list stands as a defense of his record as an editor, not as an excuse to make edits that violate policy, and like I said, it's a great tool to help keep one's focus on being fair and balanced, no? As for "biased editors", no editor is free of bias, and anyone who claims to be an unbiased editor is fooling themselves. We all devote much of our efforts to making sure our POVs are represented fairly and accurately (hopefully in a NPOV way). Very few actually spend any time making sure their opponent's view is fairly and accurately represented, so I'm impressed with anyone who makes such noble efforts on behalf of their opponent, and for the sake of the readers. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:25, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
It is one-sided. Anyway, I didn't want to be drawn into this. Have the last word. — Helpful Dave 21:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well I feel a little boorish having the last word. I don't understand what your reference to "one-sided" means. Nonetheless, I respect your wishes to end the discussion. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I see I missed a lot of excitement during my brief semi-hiatus from Wikipedia. I would be interested in seeing if my critics could find a dozen of their edits which diametrically oppose their biases, much less 100. Suffice it to say that while editors are certainly allowed to have bias (and indeed, all do), they should stick scrupulously to Wikipedia policy in their article edits. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that: please note that Wikipedia:Civility is Wikipedia policy. And for the love of all that is feline, please rely on evidence and diffs, rather than make broad accusations. I realize it's easier, but what is easier, more often than not, is not worthwhile. Try to be constructive and concrete: where, when, what, how, meaning that, etc. I find the Anons SHOUTS of Jewish Supremacy to be out of line and out of order for a Wikipedia talk page, and civil discourse in general. The only purpose they serve is an antagonistic one. More thoughtfulness, and a greater balance between the particular and the universal is called for. Note that I have not read this article, but I am nonetheless making this comment in the interest of goodfaith and collegial discourse. El_C 05:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From reviewing his user page, Jayjg is routinely accused of bias on Wikipedia. Is it civil for jayjg to use slurs on other contributors?
      • From: "General suggestions -- Preventing incivility within Wikipedia"

Block certain users from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility. Jayjg ought to be blocked from this page if he continues pushing a POV.69.218.27.84 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving's website contains information relevant to the ADL

I agree with Molloy and disagree with the other guy who reverts without discussion. --Dogtag 02:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the latest user account, ATS (talk · contribs), which I assume is a reincarnation of Dogtag and the anon IPS, David Irving is not regarded as a reputable or credible source for Wikipedia (or any other credible publication). This means he may only be used as primary-source material for the article about himself, and even then with caution. He can't be used as a secondary source of information about anyone else, because what he says can't be trusted. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

David Irving is a successful & highly regarded historian, his works receiving five star reviews and critical acclaim time and time again. Your claim that David Irving is a non- credible source is totaly unfounded, and is no more than slander and lies.
Here are some neutral opinions on David Irvings works:
One books...stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War, David Irving's Hitler's War - John Keegan, Editor of The Daily Telegraph
A vivid portrait accompanied by much striking and original analysis... again Irving shows himself to be a master of documentation. - Professor John Erickson, Edinburgh
...his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled....Moreover he writes in a clear and vivid style. - Sir Charles Gray, QC ( a judge )
Ignore the hate merchants of the Jewish lobby whose hatred for Irving blinds them. This is, like all of Irving's books, a thoroughly well researched and factual work of the highest order...David Irving has shown himself once again to be a historian of the highest quality...nobody can genuinely dispute his skills as a writer of history and historical biographies. - Amazon.com Review
No praise can be too high for his (Irving's) indefatigable scholarly industry...An exact and scrupulous historian... - Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper
A professional historian of noted distinction. - Amazon.com Review
With acclaim like that, I see no reason to dismiss him as a non-credible source, your argument is flawed. All critisim of David Irving seems to come from Jewish origins, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the ADL, various Jewish lobby groups, so they obviously contain bias. - ATS
  • So he writes well. The quote about him in the David Irving article is sufficient:

Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and from the same Judge Gray who praised his knowledge and his writing skills:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

So I can't imagine it's hard to comprehend why his opinions regarding any matters concerning Jews are not considered encyclopedic sources -- other than in articles about David Irving. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see the David Irving article has several links to his "Adl Profile", now is the ADL a reputable source? Let's review some neutral criticism:
"The ADL is a pathetic fraud" - Frontpage Magazine [16]
"You (The ADL) are not above twisting words of those you take to task in order to be able to deploy the usual semantic vituperatives" - Ralph Nader
"The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL) is some sort of branch of evil. They don't seem to be at the root of the corrupt tree, but they certainly produce corrupt fruit." - Jim Davidson
The ADL, A History of Jewish Disinformation and Intimidation. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes itself as a civil rights organization, has been in the forefront of an ongoing attempt to label legitimate American-Arab and American-Muslim charitable, political, and informational organizations as fronts for terrorism. This attempt is part of a long-standing ADL policy of discrediting any individual or organization opposed to Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. The ADL's strong political loyalty to Israel as well as its acknowledged ties to Israel's external intelligence agency in addition to its past practices of spreading disinformation and intimidating those who have spoken out against Israeli policies should however serve as a warning about the ADL and the nature of its claims. [17]
I found all that within 2 minutes with google, and there are many more accusations of biased character assasination out there. If you refuse to allow the David Irving link, a noted historian who has been targed by the adl, and who is a leading critic of their activities, I will remove all the links to the ADL from other articles, david duke, don black, etc, as we all know how biased and uncredible the ADL is. - Molloy
  • Let's see. An opinion column in Frontpage, primarily complaining that though the ADL is fast to act against right-wing anti-Semites, it doesn't speak out loudly against left-wing anti-Semites. Jim Davidson -- who's that? Oh, a columnist at David Irving's website; his opinion demonstrates precisely what? http://theunjustmedia.com -- man, have you actually READ that site? Oh, maybe you have; besides being viciously anti-Jewish, anti-American, and anti-Christian, it's also a purveyor of holocaust denial. One gets to consider the source. The strong consensus on Wikipedia is that David Irving is not an acceptable source (to put it mildly). If you wish to test the consensus, feel free. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
Well, no I just found all that via google. However, from reading this page, I can tell you that the general consensus here on Wikipedia is that the ADL is not a reputable source. If you read ADL's policy, you will see how hopelessly biased it is. Molloy
By the way, the above quote from the Irving trial was from a witness called (and paid by) the opposition. Molloy
There's no evidence that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the ADL is an unreliable source; quite the opposite. And the witness called was (unlike Irving) a respected academic. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
And he was paid an obscene ammount of money to say what he did. Jayjg, there is a large majority of editors that openly acknowledge that the ADL is a biased and un-encyclopedic source. Is there a way we can vote on this? Molloy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=18240229"