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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 7 September 2024 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 10) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was met for option G. Most editors agreed that the the ban could be mentioned in the article, but that the current version gave UNDUE weight to a minor news story for a major organization (editors also cited WP:RECENTISM). A small number of editors discussed whether the incident should get its own page, but no consensus was found for this suggestion. The discussion didn't find consensus against including the incident in the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, but there was no conclusion as to how much to include. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 06:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section currently titled "Wikipedia determination of unreliability on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" ...

A. Remain in the current article (Anti-Defamation League)
B. Become its own article, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
C. Merge into List of Wikipedia controversies, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
D. Merge into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
E. Remove altogether
F. Other (specify)
G. Significantly cut (as instituted on 7 July) [1]

Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC); edited 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*B. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A but this isn't that important to be highlighted in the lede, despite the widespread coverage by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D or B, definitely not A: extreme navel-gazing and minor in the history of the organization; the five subsections currently dedicated to this is unmoored in proportionality. (As an inclusionist, I can see a world where we have a B style article for a wider range of passing events, but that's not our current norm) – SJ + 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B: I still have concerns with D as it would likely dominate the entire article. Likely would be better as its own article with a sentence or two where appropriate elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RfC has been amended, I will add that G already fits with what I have said, "[...] with a sentence or two where appropriate elsewhere." --Super Goku V (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D, supportive of E, strongest possible opposition to A, (alternatively F as part of a depreciation-on-wiki article) mostly per SJ, its long navel-gazing with limited long-term coverage (and almost no significant academic coverage). In the context of this article, the appropriate length would be a few sentences at most, this is excessive. FortunateSons (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and support for the new G FortunateSons (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A and D As currently constituted the section on Wikipedia is far too long, such as to constituted excessive emphasis. A reference to it needs to be shrunken down and kept in the article, with more details merged into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I don't think the controversy is important enough at this point to warrant its own article, as it doesn't seem to have resulted in anything more than a complaint, some commentary and WMF response. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G as well. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, NPOV requires that it be cut down proportionally. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this reminds me of Talk:Nihad_Awad#White_House_disavows_CAIR_after_Nihad_Awad_Oct_7_Remarks. Awad is the head of the largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy group in the US. That discussion resulted in >50% of the article prose dedicated to a single remark Awad made during the Israel-Hamas war (even though CAIR has been doing a lot of work for 30 years in other areas). The problem is that as time goes on, the volume of articles outputted increases, skewing WP:DUE towards WP:RECENTISM. So based on the current definition of WP:DUE, I would favor A or B, because this topic has had a lot of discussion in the press. Hope we can find a different way to evaluate DUE-ness in the future.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Worth discussing at WT:NPOV, see the latest topic there. – SJ + 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B - this is a major controversy, already discussed from a wide range of perspectives in reliable sources. By definition, it is not navel-gazing, which occurs when Wikipedia covers an issue disproportionately because the issue involves Wikipedia. So long as we follow the rough proportions of the coverage of this controversy in the context of others, in the best sources available, then we are fulfilling our role. Whether that purpose is best carried out within this article, or with a child article and a redirect, is a secondary question and I haven't seen compelling arguments in either direction.
Also, my sense is that editors suggesting that the burst of recent coverage should be expected to evaporate and should therefore be discounted are essentially engaged in WP:CRYSTAL argumentation. We need to base article content on what actually exists, and there are good reasons to expect that future coverage might take the opposite direction from what these editors assume as they discount the recent coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In interest of transparency -- and, if no one objects -- I've added an additional option, "significantly cut," to reflect the large amount of content that was slashed from the live version of this article on 7 July [2]. (This may impact the !vote by inclining some editors to opine "A" given the paucity of content now present.) Chetsford (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like it mixes two different questions in one RFC: how detailed should coverage in this article be, and should extra detail go into another article? – SJ + 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B. 10% is hardly a huge portion. Contrary to some user's claim, the ADL reacts strongly with our RfC to the point of misrepresenting the consensus of our RfC.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameboat (talk • contribs) 04:20, July 9, 2024 (UTC)
    This comment belies the history and importance of the ADL. This conflict w/ WP isn't 10% of the ADL's history. It isn't even 1%. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Steelbeard1 (talk)
  • A Wikipedia is one of the most notable websites on the web, receiving near-constant media coverage. If various reliable sources think that our assessment of ADL's reliability is important, in it goes. D in particular makes no sense because the relevant info is already mentioned there. However, I do not think it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I would support trimming it down a bit, it is way too long as-is. A paragraph or two would suffice. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — For comparison, here's the amount of space in the article for the ADL's work on hate crime legislation.
"ADL was among the lead organizations campaigning for thirteen years, ultimately successfully, for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.[136][137] The hold-up in passing that law focused on the inclusion of the term "sexual orientation" as one of the bases that a crime could be deemed a hate crime.[138] ADL also drafted the model hate crimes legislation in the 1980s; it serves as a model for the legislation that a majority of states have adopted.[139]"
And here's what's in the article on Wikipedia's downgrading of ADL as a source.

Wikipedia determination of unreliability on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
See also: Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
In June 2024, the community of the English Wikipedia reached a consensus that the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,[235][22] including "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic".[236] The community's discussion on the ADL's reliability began in April 2024 and involved over 120 volunteer editors.[237]

Prior to June 2024, the ADL was considered a generally reliable source, though some editors considered it a biased source on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that "should be used with caution, if at all" on the topic.[236]

Discussion and determination
Informal discussion among Wikipedia editors about the reliability of the ADL started on March 25, 2024.[238] On April 6, a formal discussion began about the suitability of the ADL as a source for use on Wikipedia in relation to three subjects: the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, antisemitism, and the organization's Hate Symbols Database. The discussion ultimately involved more than 120 editors.[237][238]

In June 2024, the English Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[235] A Wikipedia administrator who evaluated the community's discussion to determine its result cited the existence of substantial evidence of the ADL acting as a "pro-Israeli advocacy group" that has published unretracted misinformation "to the point that it taints their reputation for accuracy and fact checking regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as well as a "habit on the ADL's part of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism".[236] Later that month, the Wikipedia community concluded the ADL's lack of reliability extended to "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic", but "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned".[236] The community also concluded that the ADL's hate symbol database was "reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols’ history".[236]

Response by the ADL
The ADL condemned the initial decision, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization. The ADL opined that editors opposing the ban "provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter."[235] In a later interview on the subject with MSNBC's Morning Joe, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said the decision was the result of a "small group of people [who] take a political position, and they're not accountable".[239] The decision was also criticized by over 40 Jewish organizations, including Jewish Federations of North America, B'nai B'rith International and HIAS. In a letter coordinated by the ADL and sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the organizations stated "As leading Jewish communal organizations, we express our concern and dismay by Wikipedia's attack on ADL's reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the Jewish community."[240] The letter also called for the foundation to "immediately launch an investigation into this decision" and to reconsider it.[241]

On June 25, 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation issued a preliminary statement in response to the letter, stating that the groups' call for an "investigation" and action by the foundation represented "a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works".[241] The foundation, at the time, said it was still considering a fuller response that would help "raise more understanding with these groups about how Wikipedia works".[241] A press release issued the following day by the foundation stated that "... the Foundation has not, and does not, intervene in decisions made by the community about the classification of a source".[242]

Reaction
Analysis
James Loeffler of Johns Hopkins University, a professor of modern Jewish history, commented that the Wikipedia editors were "heavily influenced by the ADL leadership's comments", which took "a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism".[243] Loeffler also said that the English Wikipedia's decision was a "significant hit" to the credibility of the ADL.[235] Dov Waxman, professor of Israel Studies, said that if "Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ADL's data, it becomes a real issue for Jewish Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antisemitism".[235] The Independent called it a "major blow" to the ADL.[22] CNN called it "a stunning rebuke to one of the world's preeminent authorities on anti-Jewish hate and a significant advocate for the rights and causes of American Jews."[243]

Commentary
Mira Sucharov of Carleton University said the decision was "a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions".[235] Writing in The Forward, senior columnist Rob Eshman opined that the determination by Wikipedia that the ADL was generally unreliable was a "wake-up call" the organization "badly needs" and that it "must do better".[244] In a statement in response to the decision, Jewish Voice for Peace accused the ADL of lying and said "thank you Wikipedia".[245] In an editorial column, Jonathan S. Tobin juxtaposed the Wikipedia community's decision with the ADL's prior advocacy for content moderation on social media, writing that "... the ADL's pro-censorship chickens have come home to roost".[246] Commenting during an episode of The Hill's Rising, Robby Soave said, "I agree with the Wikipedia editors on this — I find the organization to be unreliable some of the time".[245]

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to a serious WP:WEIGHT WP:ASPECT issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC) correcting policy link.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for G. Can live with C or D. It should have no more than a paragraph in this article, and should not be in the lead. It is absurdly self-indulgent to make this article into an article about us. It's a century old organisation that has had a massive amount of coverage in all kinds of sources, and how Wikipedia rates it in 2024 should not take up much space in telling its story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D and G, and I'm shocked to see people wanting to spin this into its own article. Do you think people will be talking about this for years? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D and G. i would support cutting the content in this article more; as BobfromBrockley said, it seems "self-indulgent" Rainsage (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but A The section is ludicrously long and blatant WP:RECENTISM for a long-standing and important organisation. I would also support removing mention from the lead as self-indulgent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (B is second choice, nothing else is good). It clearly is a pretty big deal for the organization, since it was widely covered in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B It's way too long and I would just as soon it was gone altogether but since it is notable, lets make a proper article out of it, even at the risk of it becoming a coatrack for every half baked opinion in the world. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't WP:CENSORED, and WP:NOTPAPER says "There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The content here doesn't violate anything in WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. Hence, there really is no reason to remove it entirely from wikipedia. We can simply move it to a different (possibly its own) article. It amply meets WP:GNG guidelines. And since both ADL and wikipedia are likely to remain relevant for years to come, this topic definitely has long-term significance.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "ADL Being Silenced on Wikipedia is Wrong", ADL
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Avoiding navel-gazing

It was suggested above by Newimpartial that the recent versions of this article did not demonstrate navel-gazing, however this is a classic of the genre. We can debate whether the level of self-reference is appropriate here, but I just removed three specific examples (reverted again by Newimpartial w/o discussion):

  • Self-ref in the lede. The ADL's reliability has been acclaimed and denounced by many notable arbiters of reliability than Wikipedia over the years. Yet Wikipedia is the only example of reliability-assessment mentioned in the lede.
  • Extended details about the ADL's open letter being addressed to the WMF, and getting a response pointing out that that Foundation is not involved with editorial decisions on the projects. This is inside baseball, not particularly notable or widely reported, and of interest primarily to Wikipedians. Not deserving of its own paragraph that says nothing substantive about the ADL or its work.
  • Excessive sub-sectioning for the section about a Wikipedia controversy, making the article less readable. The ADL's evaluation on WP:RSP changed from green to a mix of green, yellow, and red. This happens to sources; the process isn't overly notable, nor was the response. A blow-by-blow of the timeline of evaluation and various responses adds nothing to the history of the ADL, and is again only of interest to people who follow Wikipedia processes.

It is easy for articles about topics in the news to become coat-racks for trivia that get mentioned in reliable sources, or even questionable sources like a The Hill web series. We should take extra care not to let that happen with topics involving WP itself. – SJ + 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The ADL is a 110 year old advocacy org, with a storied history in fighting anti-semitism. It's recent pro-Israel advocacy is more contemporary politics, and defeats the purpose of us being an encyclopedic source if we highlight it in the first sentence.
Currently, this wikipedia portion makes up slightly more than 10% of the article by word count. That is ludicrous WP:RECENTISM for a news story that lasted maybe 4 days (are there any sources that have occurred after July 1st? Will there be any?). We should be able to clean up this article, and if folks want to make another article with all this info, just look at the history to rebuild if they need to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem a tension b/t people editing to make WP a better source for contemporary takes, despite guidelines to the contrary, and those editing to make it a better encyclopedic reference. If Wikinews had been more successful, I could imagine newsworthy subjects having a sidebar summarizing the latest news (w/ balanced overview of takes from the past year) w/o trying to shoehorn those into the encyclopedic summary (w/ balanced overview of historical perspectives). And we could have a style guide for the time-scale on which to merge summaries of one more deeply into the other. – SJ + 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we take Wikipedia as it is sometimes and accept whatever it becomes.
Just, this instance seems especially egregious in terms of how little this incident is in the grand scheme of the ADL's history and how inflated it is on this page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus on this page that references to Wikipedia's reassessmet of the ADL's reliability in the context of the Israel-Paleatine conflict is excessive and counts as "navel gazing". That could be true, but only if the coverage of this issue in the article exceeds its representation in recent, reliable sources, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
What I have seen is that coverage of this issue in Israel-based sources has been especially prominent over the last month, though sources from many other national news markets have covered the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia is a notable website, and if various reliable sources think our judgement on ADL's reliability is of importance, in it goes. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A mention may be proportionate. This section is about disproportionate coverage, specifically inclusion in the lede, and 5 sections of detail about our assessment process. This was a media cycle, which ended two weeks ago. – SJ + 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the reference to Wikipedia's opinion evaluation in the lead feels too self-important and undue. I tried removing it, but @Sameboat: reverted me without having the decency of providing an edit summary to explain themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus to remove that from the lede. You can be bold about that, but unless there is a clear consensus I don't think there is enough support to remove that. Also writing an edit summary is not mandatory, the information page of edit summary, not a policy or guideline, only suggests editor should write an edit summary. Certainly leaving it blank (when there is already a machine-gen revert message) has nothing to do with "decency". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as one more editor who does not think that Wikipedia should be in the lead. Zerotalk 07:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should not be in the lead, massive WP:Undue, a blip in a very long institutional history.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS to gain consensus is on those who wish to include disputed content. Absent a consensus for inclusion it should be removed Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and also agree that it should not be included. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there appears to be a consensus in this discussion that the mention in the lede specifically is undue, I will remove it in a few hours once my 24 hr revert rule is up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone ahead and removed it Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covering changes to characterization over time

separating from the previous section, as it's about a different aspect of the article – SJ +

Just because an organization was founded for a certain purpose, doesn't mean that it keeps the same focus over time. I think the sourcing shows that it is increasingly operating as a pro-israel advocacy group. I think it's reasonable for the article to reflect the current state of affairs while mentioning its history. (t · c) buidhe 18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See U.S. antisemitic incidents hit record high in 2022, ADL report says, Reuters, March 23, 2023.
"In January, a gunman took three congregants and a rabbi hostage for more than 10 hours at a Texas synagogue. Four months later, a Hasidic Jewish school bus driver was shot with a BB gun in New York City. In September, a congregant was punched leaving a Portland, Oregon, synagogue."
"The number of incidents involving organized white supremacist propaganda activity doubled, incidents at K-12 schools increased by 49% and by two-fifths on college campuses in 2022, the organization found."
"Attacks on Orthodox Jews rose by 69%, while bomb threats against Jewish institutions increased by eight to 91."
"According to an ADL report in January, a fifth of Americans now believe in six or more antisemitic tropes, almost twice as many as in 2019. The survey asked respondents to rate the truthfulness of 14 statements describing different traditional anti-Jewish tropes including "Jews have too much power" in the business world and on Wall Street."
Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? Did you mean that because the ADL was cited by other reliable sources on compiling data of antisemitic incidents, its pro-Israeli advocacy property is irrelevant"? Apologize in advance if it feels like I am putting words in your mouth. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The message I addressed seemed to mischaracterize how ADL's interests are proportioned. Being pro-Israel doesn't diminish it's main interest of being against anti-semitism, which I think was shown by the report. See also, Ohio State faces Anti-Defamation League complaint alleging 'failure' to address antisemitism, The Columbus Dispatch, April 8, 2024.
"The complaint cites a number of incidents involving Ohio State students including:
  • In November, a group of five Jewish student were attacked by two individuals while walking off-campus. One of the students wearing a necklace with a Hebrew letter was called a slur and two students were punched in the face, which broke one's nose and one's jaw.
  • On Dec. 9, a Jewish student wearing a sweatshirt with the words “Am Yisrael Chai” (which translates "the people of Israel live") in the shape of a Jewish star was confronted by another student who used a profanity to tell him to take off the shirt.
  • On Jan. 26, a Jewish student living in off-campus housing found that their mezuzah (a symbol of Jewish identity) had been torn from their doorpost and thrown on the ground.
  • On Feb. 2, Jewish students eating Shabbat dinner at the campus Hillel were interrupted when other students began banging on the windows and shouting “Free Palestine.”
  • On Feb. 23, a Jewish student’s dorm room door was vandalized with graffiti reading “Free Palestine.”
  • On Feb. 15, Jewish students gathering signatures on a petition against antisemitism at the Ohio Union were confronted by a man saying he would not sign because he wants to “kill Jews.” The next day, an individual stole an Israeli flag from the Ohio Union after a multicultural event there, flashed a “white power” sign and harassed Jewish students."
Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have secondary RS critical of the ADL's confusion of protests on behalf of Palestine, and antisemitism. Read them. (By the way, things similar to all of those incidents, occur, not dispersed over two months, every day in the West Bank, and the targets are Palestinian. These events are all covered in Israeli newspapers, but never attract the ADL's attention, despite its boast about being the world's largest NGO for tracking and denouncing discriminatory practices).Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Israel advocacy in lead

I support the Dag21902190 version of the lead. It includes the mention of Israel advocacy (which should indeed be in lead) and has the same content, but is ordered more logically and without skewing to make pro-Israel the main story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts. Dag21902190 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably put it in the first paragraph of the lead somehow.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy" should not be in the lead paragraph. It is excessive emphasis and skews the NPOV of the article for that reason. Also I am not sure it is accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ADL's pro-Israel advocacy should definitely be in the lead as it underlies a major part of ADL's focus and actions. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dag21902190's version makes that point and uses that very language without putting it at the very beginning, which is excessive weight.
    I have my doubts about the sourcing notwithstanding placement. There are three footnotes for that sentence. Two are offiline. Of the two offline sources, one (Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings. Sage. p. 58) seems incorrect. Going to p. 58 via Google Books, I see no description of the ADL as pro-Israel. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see the subject addressed at all concerning the ADL in that book, and a word search of "Israel" confirms that. The apparent misuse of that source does not give me high confidence in the use of the other offline source, which is available only in sniippet view on Google Books. That leaves an online footnote for the Britannica reference, which does substantiate it. But I think we need a greater weight of sourcing considering the sensitivity of the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into the same problem with Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings. Sage. p. 58, where it was not relevant to the text. Also, note that the Britannica article on the ADL does not mention ADL's support for Israel in its lead, except to say that ADL has an office in Israel. Britannica mentions ADL support for Israel in the last paragraph of the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above I mentioned the first and third refs. I later looked into the second ref too (Hendricks 2019), which is a two page article on the ADL, and it did not mention Israel. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Misuse of sources, attributing statements to sources that they did not make, is a serious matter if done in bad faith. I don't know which editor did so, I assume it was an unintentional error, but it needs not to be repeated or it will have to go before WP:AE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious that Israel advocacy should be in the lead. Not only is the ADL well known for that, it has openly proclaimed Israel advocacy to be part of its mission for many decades. See here, here, here and here, for example. Look at this ADL summary of 65 years of advocacy. Let's not pretend that ADL doesn't do what everyone knows they do and ADL proudly declares. Zerotalk 06:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not a shadow of a doubt that this has become one of its prime functions. Its advocacy is not restricted to defending Israel (perfectly normal), but extends to defending its occupational policies and the settler constituency in the West Bank, which is not advocacy for Israel but advocacy for occupying another country. When Obama called for a freeze on settlements, the ADL joined right-wing Israeli lobbying groups in condemning his proposal:'“Mr.President, the problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection’ (Theodore Sasson, The New American Zionism, New York University Press 2015 ISBN 978-1-479-80611-9 p.47), a headline banner-waving sentence so pointedly phrased that it appeared to also mean that the problem with settlements is that Palestinians object to them. This is so glaringly obvious, we shouldn't even be discussing it.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether its "Israel advocacy" has achieved such a primacy that this >100-year-old organization has devolved into that, rising above all else, so that it belongs not just in the lead but right up at the very top of the article. It is at the very least recentism but I think it is more an NPOV issue and a product of the focus on this article caused by the ADL's complaints about Wikipedia. It's almost as if we are sticking a finger in the eye of an organization that has badmouthed Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Israel advocacy is one of the ADL's core functions, and that this is not only recently. They were on the "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" wagon already decades ago. Note that the ADL's timeline of itself mentions Israel in every decade that Israel has existed. This is not a side-show but clearly central. Unfortunately, it is probably impossible to get a breakdown of how the ADL spends its $100 million. Zerotalk 14:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple The ADL had no problems with declaring it was an israeli advocacy group and with writing and promoting material to that end. What appears to have happened is that it erased all trace of this record from its website some time ago. See Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism, Times Books/Henry Holt and Company ISBN 978-1-250-02673-6 2013, which mentions their publishing an 89 page “Guide for Activists” once available at [4]. Se also [5]. These links functioned and are cited in several secondary sources of quality, and now do not function.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They removed a document on pro-Israel advocacy? That indicates that they are moving away from such activities, not moving toward them. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the Wikipedia Library bundle for "ADL" with "pro-Israel" and the first search result was an article in Commentary from 2022 by Seth Mandel arguing that the ADL has been in the forefront of alleging that right-leaning speech is "misinformation." I understand that it has come under attack for that. We could say that with greater or even more justification in the lead paragraph, though I certainly would oppose doing so as a POV issue just as I oppose the current language re pro-Israel at the very beginning of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Guardian Jan 2024) Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics
"ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations"
"Critics...say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel."
(The nation 2024) The Anti-Defamation League: Israel’s Attack Dog in the US
I don't see how one can describe the org as anything but pro Israel. it's almost a defining characteristic atm. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple.Strawman. Removal means 'moving away from advocacy activity'? The sentence is shorn of logic. Because I did not say the ADL was moving towards Israeli advocacy. I stated, as Zero documented, that the ADL has a very long history of lobbying for Israel. John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Penguin Books 2007 passim, but at p.113, identifies it as one of the four core lobby groups 'whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies,.' Anyone is entitled to ignore the evidence, but there is no evidence that the ADL has ceased its Israel advocacy (and again, I insist, all nations lobby for their interests (only people tend to get nervous when this practice is mentioned re Israel)). If I have to give an opinion,as you do, why they took off those links showing their activism, a decade ago, then I would suggest that 'advocacy' for another country sits poorly, when you can do it by other means, like vigorously lobbying to get legislatures to enshrine in law limits to free speech re Israel, a project which it has dedicated strong funding for for the last several years. As the Guardian puts it, 'The spending positions the ADL as the largest pro-Israel lobbying force on domestic issues.' But, of course, this is just evidence, and really shouldn't impact our opinions here.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more neutral sources for that characterization than aggressively anti-Israel sources such as you just cited. Measheimer et al? Please. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we is an example of the plural of majesty, I guess. If someone does not consider that the joint work of the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School is RS because they consider it an 'aggressively anti-Israel' source, then it is a fair intimation either that (a) they probably haven't read the book (b) and if they have, all they found browsing the 355 pages and the 1398 footnotes, all with multiple sourcing and extending each to several lines over 106 pages (pp.357-463), is that the evidence is unanswerable, and the only response therefore is to dismiss the source as 'aggressively anti-Israel', a political judgment, not a rational assessment of the evidence. Everybody here is entitled to their opinion, but unless the comments show familiarity with RS, those opinions are negligible.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're responding to something I didn't say. Getting back to what I actually said, this is not rocket science. Mearsheimer, Walt and The Guardian are unabashedly anti-Israel and cannot be considered unbiased sources in this subject area. Also it is important to note that there are two issues here. Sourcing and placement. What's your justification for placement at the very top of the article? Not just in the lead section but lead paragraph? That is the primary issue here as I understand it. What is the justification for that? Do you have one? Do you oppose placement in the first paragraph? Perhaps we agree on that point. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions on what is unabashedly anti-Israel are not arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats absurd, The Israel Lobby is a work by two noted academics who are undoubtedly experts. Any editors dislike of their scholarly work on the basis of being aggressively anti-Israel is meritless and does not need to be countered with anything other than WP:RS ranks academic works higher than random Wikipedia editor opinions. nableezy - 23:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a highly controversial source. We should use more neutral and widely accepted ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me that in the discussion so far, the ADL has been identified as supporting Israel. I think the question remains as to whether there are sufficient reliable sources that say that the ADL's work in supporting Israel is as substantial as its work against antisemitism, bigotry and discrimination. Otherwise, I don't think it belongs alongside antisemitism, etc., at the top of the lead, but possibly lower down in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That doesn't work. The evidence above identifies 'support/advocacy for Israel' as characteristic of the ADL, something it shares with AIPAC, WINEP and CUFI. I.e. the foremost critical study of pro-Israeli advocacy states that this is central to ADL's mission. Numerous sources state its regular omission of significant studies on the systematic brutalization of Palestinians, something that technically is within its remit. The oldest example of deliberate distortion I can think of goes way back.
It cited selectively a Fatah manifesto as proof that that organization attacked Jews of all countries and thereby brand it as intrinsically antisemitic. Note the way the following passage (I've struck out what they omitted, which changes the meaning substantively) was groomed to distort its plain meaning beyond recognition.

Jews contributed men, money and influence to make Israel a reality and to perpetuate the crimes committed against the Palestinians. The people of the Book, the men of light, the victims of Russian pogroms, of Nazi genocide, of Dachau and other Polish concentration camps shut their eyes and ears in Palestine and changed roles from oppressed to oppressor. This is the Jewish dilemma of modern times.’Sean Malloy, Doug Lorimer, The Palestinian Struggle, Zionism and Anti-Semitism Resistance Books 2002 ISBN 978-1-876-64637-0 pp.33-34, p.34.

It is that loud silence, apart from generalities of vague sympathy, which underlines its advocacy which, in focusing on defending Israel, ignores what its critics have documented about the situation under Israel's military occupation of another people. They leave that to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem. If protesters cite the last three, (which basically deal with the occupied territories) the standard ADL whine is to argue that such reports are 'weaponised' and are untrue because

'within Israel there are legal and political safeguards ensuring equal treatment to Arab citizens. Indeed, Arab citizens serve as judges, ambassadors, legislators, journalists, professors, artists and play prominent roles in all aspects of Israeli society.'

Absolutely true. But it shifts the goalposts by answering the criticisms about Israel's separation policy in the Palestinian territories by replying that within Israel there is no discrimination, which is wildly beyond the point.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that gets to the point as to whether the ADL's pro-Israel stance should be in the lead paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The ADL is identified as one of the four core pro-Israel advocacies lobbies in the US, but that is not leadworthy. That doesn't make sense. If it has heavily invested in pro-Israel advocacy then that is one of its defining characteristics.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's from Walt and Mearsheimer, who are openly biased against Israel, to say the least. Putting the ADL's "pro-Israel advocacy" in the lead paragraph on the word of those two persons? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris said of the work you cite as follows: : "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity." This is in the link I cited just above. No I think we need higher quality sourcing than those two persons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris of the Arabs should have been completely expelled from their homeland in 1948, and nuke Iran now fame? Have you, rather than looking at the the cherrypicked list of people, almost none with Mearsheimer and Walt's scholarly standing (and ignoring the positive evaluation made by the Financial Times:'The editorial praised the paper, remarking that "They argue powerfully that extraordinarily effective lobbying in Washington has led to a political consensus that American and Israeli interests are inseparable and identical.') ever read the book in question? Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like most books, it has garnered positive and negative reaction. However, in evaluating its use as a source in this context I think we have to carefully consider the widespread, serious and scholarly criticism, which is more than just people on Amazon complaining that they didn't like it. If we justify the use of "pro-Israel advocacy" in the lead paragraph on the basis of openly biased sources, it justifies the subject's complaints about how it has been treated in the project. Frankly I'm surprised the anti-Israel bias of this book and its authors is even being seriously disputed, or disputed at all for that matter. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a defining characteristic, which it would seem to be, then yes, it should be. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple defining characteristics, and doing so on the basis of two openly anti-Israel commentators, Walt and Mersheimer, doesn't pass the laugh test. This is a 111-year old organization that was founded for the purpose of fighting antisemitism. What is being termed (in Wikipedia's voice no less) as "pro-Israel advocacy" appears to be its effort to fight antisemitism by anti-Israel advocates. We can argue endlessly here about whether they are righteous in doing so or not, but that is what they are doing as best as I can ascertain. We can say with equal validity in that same space that the ADL has advocated against "misinformation: in a manner that has drawn criticism. The flaw with doing that, as here, is recentism and excessive emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just provided two other sources besides that and can supply more although I think this actually so obvious it shouldn't really need it, this is a major part of the reason why this org was adjudged as generally unreliable for the AI/IP conflict. It's not just bias, it's bias that affects reliability so a significant matter worthy of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from repeating ad nauseam your personal view'two openly anti-Israel commentators, Walt and Mersheimer.' You have no evidence for this, because there is no evidence. it is a smear clichés circulated by commentators of a certain political persuasion. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens it is not my "personal view" for indeed my view of the book is of no relevancy whatsoever. It is the view of a substantial number of informed critics and scholars, as carefully delineated in the "Criticism" section of the article on the book. It's all there. This is a controversial book and in my opinion it is sufficiently tainted so as to make it simply inadequate to utilize for the purposes proffered. The fact that it has been a subject of substantial controversy, the fact that this book has been subjected to notable and sustained criticism, is totally undeniable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably means it hit the mark. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but whether we believe it hit the mark or did not is not really relevant, is it? It just means that the book's assertions and conclusions are seriously disputed. We can do better. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that "we" need to find sources asserting the opposite or something different. We don't discard RS unless the bias is so severe as to affect reliability, not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, but I think this book fails WP:QUESTIONABLE. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to discuss that at RSN, anytime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the place for such discussions and I think that is a good idea. It certainly would be interesting if Mearsheimer, Walt and/or their book are ultimately found to be more reliable than the ADL. That is certainly a possible outcome. I know many editors would cheer, though the outcome from the standpoint of the project's reputation would be another matter. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob K31416, we encounter a logical problem in seeking to answer that question, as the ADL has been working hard to persuade people that opposing Israel's occupation of the Palestinian people and land is antisemitic. By doing so, the ADL is supporting the occupation and has its thumb on the scale measuring the amount of antisemitism. This makes it difficult to assess how substantial is ADL's work in support of the occupation as compared to its work in tracking and combatting antisemitism. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm not going to play along with the game of describing opposition to the occupation as "anti-Israel" and support for the occupation as "pro-Israel". Read this article in the Jerusalem Post, which quotes 17 former high-ranking Israeli security officials as saying that Netanyahu is an "existential threat to the State of Israel". So, is opposing Netanyahu's actions "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel"? Quite a conundrum! Misha Wolf (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be up to the reliable sources to determine what proportion of the ADL's work is support for Israel and what proportion is work against antisemitism, bigotry, and discrimination. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit of a red herring, it's whether the support for Israel is a defining feature and I think it is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a red herring? I'm sure you agree that it has other defining features dating back to its founding in 1913. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but a defining feature needn't take up some arbitrary % of activity. It is just a question if sources agree that it is a notable feature. In the alternative, that there are a sufficiency of sources saying that its principal attributes are something else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it depends upon how reliable sources rank-order the ADL's activity. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences from two encyclopedia articles on the ADL.
"Anti-Defamation League, advocacy organization established in Chicago in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and discrimination. Its activities include assessing hate crimes and anti-Semitism in various countries, assisting law-enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting extremists, providing antibias and diversity training, and publishing Holocaust education curricula." "Anti-Defamation League". Britannica. 2024-07-24. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
"The mission of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is to fight anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jewish people) as well as all forms of bigotry. The organization seeks to defend democratic ideals while protecting civil rights for all people through information, education, legislation, and advocacy." Hendricks, Nancy (2019). "Anti-Defamation League". In Ainsworth, Scott H.; Harward, Brian M. (eds.). Political Groups, Parties, and Organizations That Shaped America: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. Vol. 1. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781440851964.
Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The tertiary references make the rank-order plain. This is a proper use of tertiary references per WP:RS. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is not a great cite and the other predates many of the issues with ADL. But we are not here to rerun the RSN discussion, where sources were provided clearly showing the pro Israeli nature of the beast and that should be an end of it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

There were numerous RS provided above showing that one of ADL's prime functions is to serve as a pro-Israel group, so what is the reasoning for this label to be moved to the last lede paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back, obvious characteristic of the org, per recent RSN discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better to leave controversies to last lede paragraphs and only pro-Israel label in opening one? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, seems we should describe the org in the lead para, if someone else wants to cut something out, they can. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted already. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You expanded the lead paragraph to incorporate the final paragraph of the lead, including the anonymous staff dissent. Come on. The pro-Israel advocacy was already in the lead section, but at an appropriate place in the lead. There is no basis for putting it at the very top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is, it is a pro Israel org (with a very pro Israel boss) and that should be incorporated in para 1. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstuder, it ias already in the lead. Your edit not only made it effectively an adjunct to the Zionist Organization of America or AIPAC, but also put the anonymous staff dissent front and center. That was grossly inappropriate. In fact it is questionable whether the anonymous staff dissent belongs in the lead at all. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well split it up then instead of just reverting it out altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the thirst to put this is in the very first paragraph and to magnify beyond all reason some anonymous staff bickering. It's not as if it's not already in the lead. It is. It's a kind of hyperfocus and it is inappropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to tamp down the enthusiasm that some of us have to showcase the ADL as a pro-Israel organization. Readers get the point. It is in the lead section. But this is a 111-year-old organization with a long history that largely is non-Israel-related. Some of the edits make it seem as if it was created five years ago and lobbies for military aid on Capitol Hill. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the last few years, they ruined the whole thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be very frank, I find this article and this whole subject matter annoying for several reasons. One is that if you look at the top of this page, one sees that the ADL has engaged in extensive COI and paid editing in the past. They don't anymore. Now they write letters of complaint to the WMF, which is absurd, when they could just come here, to this page and to other pages, and speak on their own behalf if they so desire. I was thinking of writing a Signpost article on that peculiarity but I don't have the time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing the history of the organisation with the organisation as it is today. History is paragraph two of the lead. Paragraph one is what it is today with a one-sentence origin story. Wikipedia isn't recentism, but it also isn't permanent nostalgia. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to claim that this advocacy isn't leading information here? Really?! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, they are advocating against antisemitism that they feel is disguised as anti-Israel conduct. While we have them as a pro-Israel organization and that is supported by the sourcing. what I see here is an effort to lump them in with outright lobbying organizations such as the ZOA or AIPAC, which have a clear mandate to advocate for Israel in all its senses (military aid etc etc). Putting it in the lead section is fine. It is there already, remember? it's working against the so-called "new antisemitism," which is Israel-centered. But the edits being performed here twist reality such as to make the ADL into just a plain vanilla pro-Israel operation when that is just not supported by the sourcing such as to justify putting it into the very first paragraph. Now things have gotten so ridiculous that staff dissent is being put in the first paragraph. Anonymous staff dissent. Really now. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly go well beyond what you say here. That's one of three things very obviously detailed in the guardian piece, among many others. Or take e.g. this more recent posting – yes opinion, but from culture critic Mark Dery. You don't really have to look far. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that essay makes my point. More generally, this discussion in general has the flavor of a discussion as to whether to put ADL's Israel stuff in the lead, when it is there already and that point has been conceded. People keep saying "gosh the ADL is pro-Israel" almost as if it's not mentioned prominently. Placing the Israel text in the lead but not in the lead paragraph is not "nostalgia" but rather a balanced and fair approach. We need to be fair even to organizations that don't like us. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current first paragraph says what the organisation was founded as, but not what it actually is. That's just a failure to summarise. The first paragraph is a microcosm of the whole lead, which is a microcosm of the whole page. It's not first paragraph = nostalgia, with a dusting of awkward home truths at the end of the lead. Today, the ADL is a notably opinionated advocacy group that still does some run of the mill civil rights work, but also, fairly relentlessly, engages in a lot of less than stellar and pretty ill-conceived lobbying work on the matter of the topic of Israel–Palestine, even when it is well outside of the remit of anything civil rights related. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update as of May: its lobbying work is actually ramping up dramatically, with its spending on such activities increasing 16-fold from 2020 to now. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now your edit has twice in the lead section that the ADL has been criticized for pro-Israel activity. Gee, don't you think that's a bit overkill? It has been criticzed for everything it does, by the left and right. Introducing that repetition is totally POV and I request that you self-revert to cure that.. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the line "In recent decades, it has also become known for and received criticism for its pro-Israel advocacy" because as Coretheapple has stated, it is not only redundant, but clearly POV, and the statement "in recent decades" has an original research statement vibe to it as well. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADL has been a pro-Israel advocacy group since at least the 1960s, so we do not need in recent decades. We should just describe it as a pro-Israel group in the opening paragraph, as have RS described it. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source cited already in the lead is from 2004, so "recent decades" is the sourced bare minimum. It can certainly be left more open-ended though. And for the nth time, no, it is not redundant for the first paragraph to say everything it needs to about the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds we have general agreement on the inclusion of pro-Israel group in the opening paragraph per RS-based arguments and WP guideline, namely that the WP:Opening sentence should establish notability. Being a pro-Israel is clearly a notability for the ADL. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly do not have a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph, Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we do and I have edited to reflect that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus to include a mention of the pro-Israel stance in the lead section, but no consensus for the first paragraph. To compound matters, the way the last paragraph is worded is POV, as it emphasizes the criticism of the pro-Israel stance over the stance itself, framing the subject entirely as criticism and that golly even their staff opposes. That was on the basis of a teleconference in which dissent was expressed, but it gives the impression that the entire staff has risen up in righteous fury. No, we don't get together on talk pages and decide that WP:NPOV doesn't matter. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alter/delete the current last para if you wish, I wouldn't object provided that the relevant material remains in the body. And if there is no consensus for the current first paragraph, which seems not to be the case afaics, but if so, then there is equally no consensus for the fourth para, where y'all keep putting it.
At any rate your argument currently is that the sentence "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy." belongs in (a possibly to be amended) para 4 rather than as now in para 1. Is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the final paragraph is the place for that, and no I cannot alter the last paragraph due to 1RR. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing at a time, would editors please indicate their preference for the sentence ""ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy."

Should it be in para 1 (as now) or para 4? In the event we cannot manage an informal consensus, we can move to a formal RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the current situation is the first AND the final paragraph. The configuration of the lead was never first paragraph only. The repetition is part of what makes the lead section non-neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been about pro Israel advocacy, which is the bit I am inquiring about. I am not myself concerned about para 4, which anyone can amend or not as they see fit, only whether the given sentence is at para 1 or at para 4 (whatever para 4 might look like). Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the material back to para 4 in order to avoid duplication, question still the same though, should that sentence be in para 4 or para 1. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, and series of edits here are robustly and undisguisedly POV. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser, six of the 20 lines of the lead are an overly POV excoriation of the ADL's stance on Israel (e.g. "counter messaging critical of the illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories"). Are we ready to get serious about addressing the lead? Because that kind of text is a nonstarter. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're labelling POV is basically straight from Britannica, so good luck with that tack. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, one-third of the Britannica article is not devoted to roasting the ADL over a slow fire for its stance on Israel, but one-third of the lead of this article does just that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps start that thread on what the weighting actually should be so that we can have a mature and frank discussion on it, instead of us all just sitting on this merry-go-round of pointless back and forth. To the immediate point above, Britannica is useful at times, but it is also laggardly (no idea how often it is seriously updated) and often a poor indicator of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it cutting it down to a couple of sentences is sufficient weight. Neutral sentences. Suggest starting from scratch in that endeavor. Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, putting aside the undue emphasis issue, you are correct that there is a close paraphrase of the Briannica language, which is problematic for several reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either point to specific close paraphrasing or don't – preferably respond below in the now not bloated thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The close paraphrasing has been fixed. Good! Now let's trim it back, Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recently-added apologia to the fourth lede paragraph is unsourced, editorial and original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been noted?

Tom Perkins Internal memo reveals Anti-Defamation League surveillance of leftwing activist The Guardian 8 July 2024 Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions our wikipedia discussions by the way. Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say so, yes Dronebogus (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it said “is this notable” for some reason. I don’t know if it’s noted yet but it’s probably notable. Dronebogus (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems noteworthy to me, maybe a sentence, two at most. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic point re last para of lead

The phrasing "ADL has been criticized [...] that [...]" seems odd to me. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amend it then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the last paragraph from Britannica, which I think incidentally altered this wording in the process. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close-paraphrasing a tertiary source does not help matters. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you admit it's sourced to a tertiary source and not POV now – here's to progress! Re: paraphrasing, I do not believe it is close – I re-scripted quite intently – but if anyone can still point to any specific, overly close remnants, I will happily make amends. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at least you admit Please don't put words in my mouth. Sourcing and POV phraseology are two completely separate and distinct issues. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I condensed two sentences that used Britannica language into one sentence in some edits to the paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And that, everybody, is how editing on Wikipedia is supposed to work. Incremental improvement, not idiotic reversion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, btw, they're not just "pro-Palestinian criticisms" – obviously both human rights groups and anti-war causes are also prominent sources – you can be pro-human rights and pro-peace without being pro-Palestinian. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. I replaced "pro-Palestinian" with "some" in the sentence to try to address your question immediately, though there may be better alternatives. Llll5032 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead guidelines

People seem thoroughly confused about how leads are meant to work. The first sentence, per MOS:FIRST, succintly lays out the topic. The first paragraph, per MOS:OPEN, lays out everything notable about the topic. The rest of the lead then expounds upon the above by summarizing the contents of the page. Duplication between the first paragraph and other parts of the lead isn't a flaw, it's a feature. For example, the first paragraph will often note when an institution was founded. The second paragraph then might mention the date in the context of explaining the establishment of an institution. Naturally there is overlap between summarizing the page in the lead and specifically naming a topic's most notable features in the very first sentence and paragraph. The first paragraph is a microcosm of the lead, which is in turn a microcosm of the page. The idea that something can't be mentioned in a one-liner in the first paragraph and then expanded on later in the lead as it proceeds in summary style is just a made-up argument that bears no resemblance to our guidelines or how leads actually work. Despite being anti-guideline, I see that this flawed logic has proven persuasive, as Self, perhaps feeling the mental exhaustion of spending too much time already on the prior inane thread has now moved the one-line summary to the fourth paragraph again. However, again, that's really not how this works. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me we're headed for an RFC on the point so rather than getting tangled up in superfluous objections to other matters, simpler to put it there, the question can be asked just the same. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion not relevant to content of article
Please don't use this talk page to set forth "lead guidelines." Coretheapple (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only necessary because there appears to be some gross miscomprehension or ignorance at work on this talk page that is essentially preventing the discussion of a content dispute based on actual policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condescending to other editors is uncivil. Please desist. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out guidelines to editors that appear oblivious to them is not uncivil; it is a necessary task/duty. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors may not agree with your view of things. They may not be "ignorant" but may simply feel differently. Therefore I think that to avoid a WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:OWN situation, it would be preferable for you to not initiate sections of this kind on article talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors not absorbing and following the guidelines is not them "not agreeing"; it is them wasting the time of everyone else involved in this project. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this thread isn't generic; it's related to a content dispute on this page. If you can't make the connection, that's on you, but please don't misrepresent the issue as unrelated to the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this section is related to Talk:Anti-Defamation League#Pro-Israel advocacy in lead, in which there was clear confusion over how leads should be composed and structured. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words "criticism of the Israeli government with" in the fourth paragraph

@Llll5032, a few hours ago, I inserted the words "criticism of the Israeli government with" between the words "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and" and "antisemitism.", resulting in "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism." You removed those words, stating in the edit summary "not clearly supported by the cited sources; a clear refquote from a strong RS would be helpful".

Firstly, the first two cited sources ([18] and [19]) strongly support the words I had added.

Secondly, the lead of the article New antisemitism says: "Critics of the concept argue that it is used in practice to weaponize antisemitism in order to silence political debate and freedom of speech regarding the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, by conflating political anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with racism [...]".

In the same article, the section discussing the book The New anti-Semitism, by Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein of the ADL, includes the following:

Allan Brownfeld writes that Forster and Epstein's new definition of antisemitism trivialized the concept by turning it into "a form of political blackmail" and "a weapon with which to silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East [...]

Misha Wolf (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Weaponization of antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llll5032: has strong opinions on that subject, that might explain their ott removals. Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llll5032, I see that section "New antisemitism concept" of this article, also discusses Forster and Epstein's book and includes the following:

Reviewing Forster and Epstein's work in 1974 for the neoconservative magazine Commentary, Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, agreed that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in America in the form of opposition to the supposed collective rights of the Jewish people, but Raab criticized Forster and Epstein for "stretch[ing] the word in practice to mean anti-Israel bias in general".

In the face of these pieces of evidence, do you stand by your edit? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Misha Wolf. The Guardian source you mentioned (18) says the IHRA "defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic", so phrasing closer to that quotation could be supported by RS. But the ADL's opposition to some criticisms of Israel is already mentioned elsewhere in the paragraph, and the linking of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is still in the sentence, so perhaps the additional repetition would be unnecessary? Llll5032 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Llll5032, I consider it important that it be made clear that the concept of new antisemitism defines (at least some) criticism of Israel as antisemitic. The current wording is highly misleading as it describes the equation:
new antisemitism = antisemitism + anti-Zionism
whereas the following is true:
new antisemitism = antisemitism + (anti-Zionism and/or some criticism of Israel)
OTOH, I accept that adding words such as "and some criticism of Israel" to that sentence would make the paragraph even more bloated than it is already.
IMO, the best solution would be to add those words but to restructure the paragraph to avoid any duplication.
I don't (at least currently) feel up to such a re-write but hope that someone else does. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Misha Wolf. Perhaps editors will have ideas.
Also, if a RS of high quality specifies what criticisms of Israel the ADL does and does not consider antisemitic, or notes any criticisms the ADL has made of Israelis, these would be a welcome addition to the article, at least to the body. Llll5032 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted a replacement 4th para, which I shall now insert. It includes the words I originally added, but does so in a way which reduces the para's overall word count by one. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misha Wolf: The criticism has been levelled by almost everyone and not just some of ADL's staff. I think we are better off trimming the previous sentence poorly sourced to Britannica: "Its efforts to counter some criticisms of Israel and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have brought it into conflict with pro-Palestinian groups and peace activists." Makeandtoss (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Makeandtoss, I've tweaked the para again. Is that better? Misha Wolf (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misha Wolf: Much better indeed, thanks.
"a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism" is summarizable as "a new antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism,"? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss, doing that would be a very serious error. Consider the following:
What is criticism of the Israeli government? It is any statement of the form "I/we criticise the Israeli government for X", where "X" is some specific action or inaction. Obviously, the words "I/we criticise the Israeli government for X" can be replaced by other words with a similar meaning, such as "The Israeli government is wrong to be doing X" and so on. Often the word "government" is omitted, especially where the criticism relates to actions spanning multiple Israeli governments.
What is anti-Zionism? I can think of three cases:
  • A person waves a sign, or calls out a slogan, saying something like "Zionists out!". One could reasonably deduce that the person doing so thinks of themselves as anti-Zionist.
  • A person explains, in speech of in writing, that they are opposed to Zionism.
  • Someone, eg the ADL, states that action or statement Y is anti-Zionist.
It is very unclear, however, what constitutes being a Zionist today. Looking at Israeli political parties and politicians, being Zionist spans the spectrum from:
  • wanting Israel to flourish within the 1967 borders, with full equality for its citizens and in peace with its neighbours
to:
  • wanting to grab more and more Palestinian land, or even parts of Jordan and Lebanon and to eject all Arabs from lands controlled by Israel
It is perfectly possible to be a Zionist (in the first of these two senses), while being fiercely critical of various actions of Israeli governments, or even of the Israeli population for electing such governments.
Consequently, it is unclear what constitutes being an anti-Zionist today:
  • Does it include only people who want there to no longer be a state called Israel and for all existing Jewish inhabitants of that state to be ejected?
  • Does it also include people who want Israel flourish within the 1967 borders, with full equality for its citizens and in peace with its neighbours?
  • Does it also include people who want a binational state?
  • Does it also include people who want a federation?
I hope that clarifies why I would strongly oppose removing the words "criticism of the Israeli government". Misha Wolf (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also the Guardian article cited in that para and Wikipedia articles Working definition of antisemitism and International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The final para of the latter's lead ends with the words "The IHRA has faced criticism that its definition conflates criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism." The ADL is, of course, fully on board with the IHRA definition (as is AIPAC) and performs precisely the same bad-faith contortions to justify the accusations of antisemitism levelled against critics of Israel's actions. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, it is unclear what constitutes being an anti-Zionist today If u r a Palestinian, I don't think its unclear at all. AZ is not just about being the opposite of whatever definition of Z happens to be in vogue last week. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're a Palestinian then you want to be treated as a human being, with the same rights as others. You don't give a damn what those others believe in (whether in the realm of politics or in the realm of religion). You care what they do. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misha Wolf: I appreciate the nuance but this is being overly complicated. One important note of yours is that this isn't just criticisms of the Israeli government but Israel as a state including its military, judiciary and legislature; even its whole existence and legitimacy.
I think we should stick to RS including the Guardian article you cited which simply says "definition conflates criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Makeandtoss, as you will see by reading the first para of this section, all of this started when I inserted the words "criticism of the Israeli government with" between the words "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and" and "antisemitism.", resulting in "for its promotion of the concept of new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism." That is, as you say, fully supported by the cited Guardian article. Those words were removed by another editor. I restored them, explaining why they are appropriate. I was then asked, by yet another editor, whether "a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism" is summarizable as "a new antisemitism, which includes anti-Zionism". The purpose of my mini-essay above was to explain why the answer to that question is No. Re your concluding statement, that is (roughly) what the sentence now says. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's go with "new anti-semitism definition, which conflates criticism Zionism or Israel with antisemitism." Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct, though related, things here:
The para currently mentions the former. What you are proposing means replacing it with the latter. Note that the IHRA's definition is not new. It was adopted (by the IHRA) in May 2016.
So we would be replacing:

along with its promotion of the concept of a new antisemitism, which conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism

with something like:

along with its promotion of the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Zionism or Israel with antisemitism

FWIW, I think that this could stir up a hornets' nest as the proponents of the IHRA definition, including ADL, hotly deny that it does any such thing.
OTOH, we could stay with the "new antisemitism". See, for example, the Commentary Magazine citation I have just added. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Or we could mention both the new antisemitism and the IHRA definition. They are similar and both are heavily promoted by the ADL. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misha Wolf: The IHRA definition is something tangible; an actual document. While the new antisemitism is a concept. For the sake of simplicity, and as the lede is a summary of the body, we should avoid mentioning IHRA in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to align closely with what high-quality third-party reliable sources say about the group's positions; placing refquotes from such RS in the article may be helpful to avoid content disputes. I made some edits to try to summarize more closely what the Guardian said, including a refquote; perhaps it helps to solve your question about the context of the IHRA definition. Llll5032 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the pro-Israel stance in lead section

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

  1. Final paragraph only. (current)
  2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
  3. No mention.
  4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

  1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
  2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • A and 2 While I commend Llll5032 for her work on the lead, what we have here is a paragraph not on the ADL's pro-Israel stance but on the criticism of that stance, comprising five lines of a 19-line lead section, more than one-quarter of the lead. On its face this is a violation of WP:LEAD, for this is a long article on the many facets of a 111-year-old organization, as well as WP:UNDUE, also on its face. Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
I have never commented before in a hatted discussion, but because I was mentioned: Makeandtoss, no, Coretheapple and I do not know each other personally, nor did we have any such communications. Also, Coretheapple is not the first editor to misread the letters in my username. Llll5032 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option WP is not a democracy. Consensus is achieved by following WP's guidelines, namely MOS:OPEN which states that the opening paragraph must establish notability, and the ADL is clearly notable for its pro-Israel advocacy; as well as MOS:LEDE which states that the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies of which the pro-Israel one certainly is one per RS. Furthermore, the current version's first part of the fourth lede paragraph is sourced to Britannica, a lousy tertiary source that has no consensus over its reliability per WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed in the RFCbefore and duly ignored by RFC opener The sentence "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy" and its references belong in the first para of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignored? It is an option, and, unless changed as I write this, the current version does not have it mentioned in the first paragraph. There was no previous RfC. There was a discussion, above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCbefore is a thing, editors unaware of what it is should not open RFCs. It is an option No, it is not. the current version does not have it mentioned in the first paragraph Because I moved it to the fourth para pending this RFC and following your complaint that there was no consensus, that is in fact the reason for the RFC. Kindly cease with specious misrepresentations of the situation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Option B Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want an immense first paragraph mention of the ADL pro-Israel stuff, or whatever, there is Option D. You know I've never seen such unbridled hostility in the early stages of an RfC, and I have opened a fair share. This is typical of I/P in general and it's on full display here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is typical of an editor in some confusion about what is happening here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1 At this very moment, the main item on ADL's web site, titled "Targeting Hillel, Antisemites and Anti-Israel Activists Push to Undermine Jewish Life on Campus", freely mixes the terms "antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist". It is important that the lead makes clear that this is ADL's current stance and that antisemitism now takes a back seat in their campaigning, while defence of Israel's actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians is in the driving seat. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article states that a Jewish social group was attacked as if it were a pro-Israel or Zionist group. Do you see ADL conflating the two, or was it the protesters? Please indicate the text or narratives within the ADL article hat lead you to characterize ADL as "freely mixing" the anti-zionist with anti-semitic? I have no idea whether such events occurred, but I do not see the false equivalence you assert. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @SPECIFICO, first of all I wrote that ADL freely mixes three terms ("antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist"), not two. Secondly (responding to your prompt), I'm very aware that some of the protesters freely mix the three terms "Jew", "Israel" and "Zionist". That makes me sad but there's not much I can do about it. You requested examples supporting my statement. The following examples are taken from ADL's web site:
    • Para 1 of the ADL article includes the words Hillel International [...] has been one of the most frequent targets of anti-Israel activists and other antisemites in recent months [...]. No evidence is offered for the claims that (1) the activists are "anti-Israel" (as opposed to being critical of Israel's actions in Gaza) and (2) that all of them are antisemites. The use of the words "and other antisemites" demonstrates that ADL considers critics of Israel to be antisemites.
    • Para 5 of the ADL article includes the words College campuses, in particular, have been a hotbed of antisemitic rhetoric and activity. Following the link in that text, we are taken to an article titled "Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023". Para 4 of that article says:

      The dramatic increase in incidents took place primarily in the period following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. Between October 7 and the end of 2023, ADL tabulated 5,204 incidents -- more than the incident total for the whole of 2022. Fifty-two percent of the incidents after October 7 (2,718) included references to Israel, Zionism or Palestine.

      No evidence is offered justifying the inclusion of the 52% in the count of antisemitic incidents.
    Misha Wolf (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ADL is not RS for fact on Wikipedia, so the 52% bit is irrelevant. I asked you to address the simple example ADL gave to support its opinion that anti-zionist views have led to anti-semitic derogation of Jewish individuals who had not expressed zioninst or pro-Israeli-government views. The ADL article refers to widespread, credible reports of anti-zionist taunts directed at kids on a Jewish social club. The question is whether that is a reasonable basis to call such derogation anti-Semitic? Such disparagement of Jewish students not expressing pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist views would seem to contradict your assertion that ADL fabricated an equivalence between anti-Israel/anti-zionist views and anti-Semitic taunts. If you'd care to respond with evidence to the contrary, such evidence would support your !vote. Otherwise it's just not something we can use to support article content.. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have some comments to make, then there is a discussion section for that. No need to badger a !voter. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as this is an organization that has roughly half of its posts on social media and its website concerning Israeli issues—some with an exceedingly tenuous or nonexistent link to any antisemitism. ByVarying | talk 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B the sourcing indicates that pro-Israel activism has become a defining feature and consistent priority of the organization. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is in good proportion to the facts. Zerotalk 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - it isn't the most important part of this topic obviously, but it is also something that is widely covered, to the point of becoming a defining feature, so it should be included in the lead. And 2, as has generated controversy is so wishy-washy that it shouldnt even really be considered. nableezy - 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (no choice between 1 or 2) — This article is trending towards giving inappropriate weight to some subjects. I noticed this in the case of the weight given to Wikipedia's downgrading of the ADL as a reliable source on Israel/Palestine subjects (see my message of 13:15, 11 July 2024), and here trying to give too much weight in the beginning of the lead to ADL's support for Israel. I looked at reliable sources about the ADL as a whole and they did not give this kind of weight in the beginning of their articles to ADL's support of Israel. See my message of 23:29, 25 July 2024. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a H:DIFF instead of referring to dates and expecting people to go looking for these comments in unspecified places? ByVarying | talk 02:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added links to the places where they appear on the page. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - The proper way to put this is in the lede, as according to the ADL itself, it tackles "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" campaigns. This does not necessary mean "pro-Israel advocacy" the way its being made out to be. And this should just be one or two sentences at most as the final paragraph. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh, the ADL is not a reliable source on the matter, we already decided that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D per Winter queen. I had the same problem with the framing, in that the ADL fights antisemitism and its content and advocacy concerning Israel is in that context. I agree also that it should be in the final paragrph only and brief. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1. This is a sufficiently major aspect of the topic based on coverage that it deserves similarly prominent and in-depth coverage in the lead. Note that "first paragraph" does not mean "first sentence"; it would still follow after the initial description of what the ADL is, which answers some of the objections above. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1: This is a highly notable aspect of the organisation and is this merited for mention in the first paragraph, per MOS:OPEN. As for how this is rendered later on the lead, it should reflect the body, per MOS:BODY, and take as much space is necessary to convey the summary. There is no particular merit in artificially limiting this to one or two sentences. The precise content of the (in this case) fourth paragraph is a matter for normal content discussions, as it has been up until now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1(Summoned by bot) This is a sufficiently major aspect of the topic based on coverage that it deserves similarly prominent and in-depth coverage in the lead. per Aquillion

Discussion

Comment Opener seeks to sway the discussion via a presentation of options that does not reflect the RFC before. This should be taken into account.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See response above. I'm going off-wiki imminently, but for the sake of future participants in this RfC I'd request that you please tone down the animus. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Responding to a contribution by @SPECIFICO at 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC) -- see above) Hey, @SPECIFICO, cool your jets. I have no idea what brought this on. I wrote that that article on ADL's web site freely mixes the terms "antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist". You requested evidence and I provided it. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brought on? I don't know much about ADL. Just read your reasoning and so I read the ADL source you referened and did not find that it conflated what you described. So I asked for specific documentation of the basis for your interpretation -- and found it lacking in your reply. No jets, etc. Whoever closes the poll will judge for themselves whether I missed something or whether your view is source-based. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any organization whose published statements treat "anti-Israel" activists as a subset of antisemitism seems to me to be performing exactly the "conflation" described. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion and POV. as SPECIFICO says, their needs to be a "specific documentation of the basis for your interpretation." Period. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to Revision as of 20:56, 4 August 2024. The now previous paragraph was incredibly POV as well as quite inaccurate ("conflate" means combining in error, not mere "criticism"). Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"conflate" means combining in error Since when? Deliberate conflation is a thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page on conflation defines it clearly. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a source and it doesn't say that is in error either. And now in breach of 1R as well. See ur talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Winter queen lizzie, I've amended that para so that it is easier for readers to locate ADL's responses to concerns raised by their staff. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Conflate" can mean "confuses" (i.e. combining in error) and there is no need to use it in the context here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Guardian article states:

Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role.

and

A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate.

Misha Wolf (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable secondary sources say the ADL is wrongly "conflating," if they're saying that the ADL is in effect inept and doesn't what it's doing, we should say so with appropriate attribution and appropriate phrasing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the conflation is wrong and the idea that the conflation represents ineptitude are completely distinct. Conflation is often, perhaps usually, part of a chosen rhetorical strategy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have directly above a quote from an anonymous ADL staffer, used to justify that language, who is saying precisely that the ADL is bungling its mission. Look, maybe it is. It's not our job to say that it is or it isn't. Editor opinions for or against the ADL are irrelevant. Editors who have animosity toward the ADL should not be editing this article. It's our job to transmit what the sources say in a neutral manner and not adopt what, in this case, anonymous critics say. We don't make word choices on that basis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple sources for "conflation", and in response some editors assert, essentially, that the ADL is distinguishing things that are distinct and equating things that are essentially the same. Well, I don't think most recent RS on the ADL support that interpretation, so I don't think the article can adopt that perspective (essentially, that there isn't conflation) without better sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If editors want Wikipedia to accuse an article subject (in this case the largest and oldest organization fighting antisemitism) of incompetence, in this case not fighting antisemitism but rather pursuing an agenda on behalf of a foreign country, the burden is on them to make that claim. At the current time we are making that accusation, and doing so without even saying "critics say." So in addition to top-loading the article with criticism, we're adopting it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that the preponderance of reliable secondary sources are making that accusation. We have more neutral words we can use to address the issue. If the Guardian says they're conflating, we can attribute that to the Guardian but not adopt their POV and use that terminology in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find other RS writing about this. See, for example, Examining the ADL’s Antisemitism Audit:

Our analysis clarifies what the ADL’s prominent report captures and excludes, and shows how the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism skews the data—ultimately serving as a reminder of the need for serious statistical analysis done by an organization not beholden to Israel advocacy.

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's criticism. It belongs in the article I guess, in an appropriate and properly attributed fashion. That's why I indicated that the article's Israel aspects are written from a critical, harsh POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source per WP and does not require attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the proportion of WP:BESTSOURCES that say so. If most RS (including some other Guardian articles [6]) do not use the word conflation in their own voice when describing the ADL's stance, then attribution is the more neutral course. WP:VOICE (part of NPOV) has guidance. Llll5032 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word conflation is an ordinary word with an ordinary meaning, it's not something special (you tried this nonsensical form of reasoning with weaponization as well, iirc). Conflating AZ=AS is what ADL does and part of the reason why the result at RSN.
Here's Slate "But the ADL, under the leadership of Greenblatt, is insisting on conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and it has made this conflation central to the ADL’s work. This has not only muddied the waters of its own antisemitism research, it has also undermined the safety, security, and pluralism of American Jews" Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions at RSN have favored attribution for descriptions in Slate magazine articles, aside from basic facts; see the RSN discussion here. Llll5032 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anything controversial, I would attribute it, but it's not controversial, it's obvious and there are other RS saying exactly the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 sentences of lead para 4

The first 2 sentences of lead para 4 start with "ADL is also known for ..." and "The ADL also promotes ...", which strikes me as inelegant. Would it be OK to change the start of the 2nd sentence to "It promotes"? Alternatively, could we make this into a single sentence, by removing the full stop terminating the first sentence and replacing "The ADL also promotes ..." with "and promotes ..."?

I'm being very cautious here as it seems that this para generates strong emotions. :) Misha Wolf (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The article is not neutral and I have so tagged for all the reasons described above---excessive emphasis, writing from a critical and not a neutral POV on the Israel matter, and POV word choice (e.g. "conflate"). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureofnine, may I remind you of the recent decisions by the English Wikipedia community regarding ADL (my emphasis):

There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the hate symbol database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history. In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases.

The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.

There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The comments of a closer in an RSN discussion are not "marching orders" which thereby set "Wikipedia policy" concerning a particular article subject, in this case the ADL, so that we have a green light to accuse them of incompetence and basically going rogue in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the accusation of incompetence? ADL does what it does very competently (and intentionally). Misha Wolf (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, either incompetently not fighting antisemitism or intentionally not fighting antisemitism. I don't know which is worse, but at the current time we're saying it as a proven fact and not as criticism, and of course, since it is a proven fact, we are not saying that the ADL feels differently. It's true. Wikipedia editors say so, and they can prove it. Really now,. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "we" are saying that the ADL is not fighting antisemitism, whether intentionally or not. I think the mainstream view in the sources currently reflected in this article, is that the ADL is "fighting" things that are not necessarily antisemitism. Rather than providing am explanation of why these actions and statements they are opposed to amount to antisemitism in the older sense (reflected in the earlier history of the organization) the ADL has redefined "antisemitism" so that these things they have decided to oppose are antisemitic by definition.
This is what the sources cited in this article say on this topic, essentially so this is what the article says. You can as an individual editor have your own opinion about this characterization, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in how you express what you're arguing against. And good, independent, secondary sources opposing this characterization would be required for it to need attribution in article space since the sourcing for it is good. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we're talking about words now. We're using the word "conflate." As in erroneously confusing. They're not involved in what the article describes as "Israel advocacy" as a sideline. It's a conflation. An error. They're off the rails. They're bungling their mission, their nonprofit purpose, ignoring it. We are saying precisely that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating that it's an error on ADL's part? It's not an error; it's intentional. Whether it is wise is an entirely separate question. They do not consider that they are bungling their mission. They are proud of what they are doing. I'm speaking here of the upper echelons of the organisation.
Anyway, I've inserted "according to critics" immediately before "conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism". Misha Wolf (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about the issues you're saying are mentioned above? I see argument about whether the section on Wikipedia's classification of ADL as a source is too much (and there is an ongoing RFC about that), and the stuff about Israel in the lede. Is that everything?
I am confused about your stance on the Israel lede issue, though. In an exchange with Newimpartial you strongly implied there aren't sufficient RS to say that in Wikipedia's voice that the ADL conflates anti-Israel rhetoric with antisemitism. (Isn't it true that they argue for more overlap between these things than many other people do, and that the press takes note of that?) But then Newimpartial claimed we do have RS for it, and in your response starting with If editors, etc. I wasn't sure if you were simply denying that or giving a different argument against "conflate." ByVarying | talk 05:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any WP-based arguments for this tag. Simple, the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies, of which the Israel one certainly is, and this is per MOS:LEDE. "Conflate" is sourced to the Guardian which a RS per WP and does not require attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for the tag are just handwaving and the arguments re conflate/ion are just nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=1244538398"