Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 5

message: Shouldn't we limit our discussion of the relations between the ADL and blacks to relations between organizations? McKinney lost her election to another black person, so I don't see how that's a racial issue. And Russell Simmons is just one person -- I don't see his affairs as necessarily being identical with those of the African-American community as a whole. -- Mwalcoff 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that the affairs of McKinney and Simmons are not the same as the affairs of the African-American community. The ADL didn't have an issue with McKinney because she is black; it was because of her statements and policies. To put that dispute under "Relations with African-Americans" is misleading. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a fact that the ADL's involvement in opposition to members of the Congresssional Black Caucus as well as puting pressure on other Black leaders and organizations has played a significant role in the relationship and tensions between Blacks and Jews in America, therefore responses by highly influential Black figures is again, quite relevant to the topic.  The fact that you obviously do not want those views to appear in this article is not reason enough to omit them. --JohnBlaz 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already discusses the conflict with some African-American organizations. If you have more to add about this issue, great, but it should be from quality sources. I maintain that the points about McKinney and Simmons should be deleted. The ADL has had disputes with lots of people; the fact that McKinney and Simmons are black does not mean those disputes reflect the relationship between the ADL and the black community in general. -- Mwalcoff 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McKinney and Simmons 

message: I wasn't the one who first removed the South Africa section, but after looking at it, I realized it was inappropriate. The serious allegations came from a 20,000-circulation weekly newspaper with pro-Palestinian views and the left-wing website Counterpunch. I did a search of the New York Times' archives but could find nothing that mentioned both the ADL and the ANC. As soon as someone finds information in an appropriate source to support the accusations, we should include them. -- Mwalcoff 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herschelkrustofsky has reinserted the ANC section, hoping that he's justified by including a link to an L.A. Times article that I already cited in the ADL files controversy section.  But the L.A. Times article, and the Chicago Tribune article I also cited, make it abundantly clear that the ADL was *not* working with the South Africans; Bullock (and Gerard with him) were selling information on the side (including a rewrite of a Herb Caen column, oh my goodness) to South Africa without the ADL's knowledge.  The paragraphs that Herschelkrustofsky inserted are deeply slanted (quoting as they do a CounterPunch column, an editorial in the S.F. Bay View by someone who sued the ADL, and Holocaust denier David Irving's anti-ADL website) and they misrepresent the facts.  I'm removing them for those reasons and because the previous section on the ADL files controversy already covers this information -- even mentioning the ANC specifically.  This is an article about the ADL, not Roy Bullock, and his dealings with South Africa are not germane here. --David Cohen 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I changed the description of Lyndon LaRouche from "jailed extremist" to "conspiracy theorist," lest we get into that flame war again. This article is slowly improving. -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The ADL files controversy (not a "scandal", really) is covered in full.  The ADL wasn't "implicated" in anything else.  Anti-ADL folks who claim the ADL was "collaborating with" or "spying for" South Africa" are not reliable media outlets deserving of mention.  And in contrast to those unreliable sources, the cited articles from major newspapers at the time do not even imply the ADL had anything to do with Bullock's South Africa connections.  So the premise of the previous comment is incorrect.  There was no ADL-South Africa link, and none was alleged in any reliable sources; the allegation is bogus.  There really is no "controversy" to mention. --David Cohen 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa section 

message: With an annual budget of over $40 million, the ADL has 29 offices in the USA and 3 offices in other countries, with its national headquarters located ...
Any idea? 40 million is quite a heap of money, isn't it? 172.177.9.23 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their Form 990 says they get the vast majority of their revenue from private donations, with only a small percentage from fees for services or from the government. It looks like they use direct mail solicitations to get some donors. -- Mwalcoff 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the easy answer is, "The Jooz". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who gave all this money ...?

message: From : "the Polish Consulate had been threatened by the Anti-Defamation League. Serial phone calls from ADL President Abe Foxman warned them off hosting anything involving Tony Judt. If they persisted, he warned, he would smear the charge of Polish collaboration with anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= Judt) all over the front page of every daily paper in the city (an indirect quote)." Blog entry confirmed by New York Sun(). Seems like an interesting choice of strategy for anti-defamators - defame others...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Piotr -- Talk pages are for discussions on article contents. If you have something you think should be added to the article, please do so. -- Mwalcoff 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Mwalcoff. Those pages are also for discussion of possible content.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read the Sun article? The Polish government claims the accusations are crap, as does Foxman. So the best you could say is "Judt said that President of Network 20/20 said that the Polish Consulate said that Abraham Foxman said..." Not exactly a reliable source here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this Washington Post article would be better; "Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.'The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure,' Kasprzyk said.".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Lerner's comment about this particular event? It's pretty vague in the Post article. Also, consider whether the size of this section is appropriate. Also, consider not piling on other things (like removing the "from the left" language) when inserting unrelated new material -- especially when the new material supports the language you removed... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-defamatiors use defamation?

message: There is a sentence which states "subsequent investigations proved that he was innocent of the crime". However this statement seems to be unsourced, Leo Frank article talks about some new evidence, but no serious investigations are noted. Who exactly "proved" it then and how? Therefore I suggest removing this sentence or sourcing it. --Magabund 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the fact tag.--68.9.116.87 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The staement "subsequent investigations proved that he was innocent of the crime" needs to be "corrected" since it can NOT be sourced. Any ideas so it is not so POV? Thanks.--68.9.116.87 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "many people believe Frank to be innocent" or "serious questions about his guilt remain" or whatever. But to say he was PROVEN innocent??? As Magabund points out BY WHOM??? WHEN?? WHERE?? HOW?? This is BEYOND unencyclopediatic.--68.9.116.87 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you screeching so? Why not just fix the thing and be done with it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo Frank case 

message: At some point in this article's history, an editor decided to group ADL's critics by ideologies, religions and ethnic groups, ie; The right, The left, Muslim/ and pro-Arab.  With that precedent, I followed suit with the grouping of Jewish Writers who are also critics.  Since Jayjg has declared that this is racist (which I find to be a rather rediculous notion), I say a happy compromise whould be to completely ungroup the ideological and religous identities of the ADL critics and simply list them as citics.  What do you think Jayjg? Acceptable? --JohnBlaz 05:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who grouped the critics into right, left and "Muslim/pro-Arab." The reason was that the list had gotten quite long, and I felt it should be broken up. If that offends you somehow, I'm fine with merging it all back together. I don't think it's "racist" to put Jewish writers in a single category; I just think it's illogical. The Jewish writers you put together do not represent Jewish organizations or specifically "Jewish" points of view. They just happen to be Jewish. CAIR and the Nation of Islam, on the other hand, are self-described Muslim organizations. Theoretically, the person who wrote the CAIR article might not even be a Muslim but just an employee of CAIR. If Salman Rushdie said something about the ADL, it wouldn't go under "Muslim sources" just because he personally is a Muslim. -- Mwalcoff 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that stated, the ADL's critics are no longer grouped. --JohnBlaz 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping of ADL Critics 

message: Please do not delete link to web site that criticized ADL without discussion.
:Agreed. Jeff Rense charges that the ADL is trying to have religious people, especially Christians imprisoned for "Hate Crimes", and for being mentally ill. The primary is a group calling itself the Truth Tellers. See Jeff's site or Google "Truth Tellers", this link: www.rense.com/general77/delayed.htm which will take the reader to www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp>www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp
A video is this: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7217700265038533779> Hate Laws turn Christians into Criminals and/or are mentally ill. 
Troll ? Hell fucking no! 205.240.144.180 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have eleven links to articles or websites critical of the ADL. We don't need one from a nutjob conspiracy theorist. -- Mwalcoff 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of ADL should be permitted

message: The section should be called "spy scandal" not "file controversy". It is the word used by many news paper, including the New York Times.
*We should expand this section.
:No, the mainstream press did not call the flap over Bullock's files in 1993 an "ADL spy scandal."  Several hysterical anti-ADL websites (including, unsurprisingly, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists) call it that, but they are not reliable sources.  A search of the New York Times archives reveals that the anonymous poster above is blowing smoke: "Your search for adl and spy in all fields returned 0 results." --David Cohen 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spy Scandal? Not.

message: The (1993) ADL files controversy section should probably be split out into its own page:
* The content (and criticism) is sufficiently specific, detailed and complete to stand on its own;
* It's taking up a lot of space, and the general ADL page is getting too long;
* These events from 14 years ago did not impact the ADL in a major, lasting way that would justify such detailed attention in the main ADL article;
* A short mention with a link to the detailed article on the episode (linking back to the main ADL article) would do fine here;
* Some of the cited criticism is also specific to these events, so splitting the section out will focus both articles.
--David Cohen 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting out ADL files controversy section

message: I'm not so sure we should have a section calling the ADL an anti racist organization considering its attempts to stifle criticism of policies of the Israeli government, which can be at a minimum be defined as preferential to its Jewish citizens. I am going to change the banners. Please discuss any changes before reverting. Please note this is being doen to keep the article as non-POV as possible, not to be anti-Israeli. Nlsanand 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't change section titles without good cause.  For one thing, it breaks wikilinks.  In this case, the title accurately reflects the section below it, and should not be redacted.  The stated mission of the ADL is to fight bigotry and racism in general as well as antisemitism in particular.  If you think that the organization isn't living up to those ideals, fine; but you can't just rewrite the headline to suit your opinion.  Even if everything Nlsanand says above about the ADL were true, and all the negative inferences valid, it wouldn't negate the ADL's current and historic opposition to bigotry and racism.  It's not proper to just erase them from the section title.  They're fact, not POV.  David Cohen 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since change the umbrella header for these categories into "Stated goals" instead of simply "goals" to reflect that these are claims by the ADL despite being oft-criticized. If it broke any hyperlinks, they need to be fixed.:bloodofox: 11:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable solution. In response, to David Cohen, these are not solely my opinions but the opinions of a large portion of the world community. Many groups' actions may be different from their stated goals, especially when those goals are vague and broad. For instance: would it be fair to have as a banner in an article about George Bush. "Supporter of Peaceful Diplomacy". Though, clearly Bush would choose to characterize himself as someone who pursues peaceful diplomacy, such a banner would be inflammatory, considering some of the things he has promoted. Just food for thought. Nlsanand 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to change a long-standing, neutral one-word major section title ("Goals") so you can add a value judgment implying that the ADL isn't honest about its goals.  That's only reasonable if your goal is to editorialize!  The title didn't need any "solution."  You can't just modify headlines to suit your opinions; that is POV editing by definition.  It is fact that the ADL is an organization fighting racism and bigotry, especially antisemitism.  They've been doing it for decades.  Just yesterday the ADL released a national report to alert people that the Ku Klux Klan has been growing in the U.S. by exploiting racism and prejudice against immigrants.  Not everything is high-profile; the ADL puts on programs for schoolchildren to help them spot and respond to racial prejudice before it's deeply ingrained.  Fighting racism is a goal of the ADL; it's not even a question.  Calling that, and everything else in the section, a "stated goal" just injects your opinion about the group, implying that the stated goals aren't the organization's real goals, suggesting that the ADL must have other, unstated goals.  And that's just your POV.  That viewpoint doesn't reflect the section below--and it doesn't belong in the section title.  N.B.: there is an extensive "Criticism" section in this article, and it would be far more appropriate to edit that section as needed. David Cohen 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yikes. That came off more brusque than I intended (especially considering that this really is a tempest in a teacup), so I apologize for the tone of the previous post.  I understand the criticisms of the ADL that Nlsanand and bloodofox are describing, and I think it's good to consider them.  While modifying the section titles relating to the ADL's goals is not the right approach, I have no problem with Wikipedians adding appropriately-sourced citations to criticism along those lines. There is always room for editors here. David Cohen 10:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting Racism and POV edits to section titles

message: The article says "founded by B'nai B'rith", but does not say what is the present relationship between the two. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to B'nai B'rith 

message: Jeff Rense has claimed that this org. intends to have Christians declared criminals. The group who is making noises of that sort is calling themselves "the truthtellers". Check the website AND his archives for more info. Claims incl. Hate Bill Will Make Christians Into Criminals. 65.173.104.118 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IF true, this could mean WAR, since Christians, especially the FUNDAMENTALIST sects do NOT trake kindly to being declared criminals. According to these, being gay is a sin, among other things. 65.173.104.118 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Rense

message: Hi.  Firstly all of the Amazon links are no good since we should try not to favor a single store--ISBN XXXXXXXX style is proper.
I have also started to use the reference system in hopes that eventually all of the links will be given proper bibliographic entries (and archive links) in case they go offline. gren グレン 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon links and references 

message: I added some material about this issue. What do folks think of the sources ,   and material? Thanks, --Tom 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've move that section up in light of the latest events. It's pretty serious when they are firing their own people for daring to recognize this genocide. That's no longer a matter of outside criticism, but an organizational postion.  -- 146.115.58.152 07:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The ADL seems to have changed their position, though I'm waiting for a non-preliminary source. If early reports are correct, do we split this off and keep a small sub article around for posterity's sake, or purge this history? -- 146.115.58.152 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaretz has a story on this this today: "Under pressure, ADL admits: Turks' Armenian massacre was genocide".--John Nagle 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ADL and [[Anti-Armenianism]]