Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 2

message: The article claims "With the decline of overt anti-Semitism in the U.S., the ADL has increasingly focused on pro-Israel activism."  Really? Could someone provide a source? Because the great majority of what the ADL deals with has little or nothing to do with political support of the State of Israel. This claim seems like the paranoid claims seen on many Islamist and anti-Semitic websites, which promote the idea that Jews use the ADL to unduly influence the US government. RK
Did the person who added this section ever actually read ADL bulletins and press releases, and go to meeting with ADL representatives?  In actuality, they deal with all of the following subjects: Anti-Semitism, Black-Jewish Relations, Christian-Jewish Relations, Civil Rights Discrimination, Racism, Bigotry, Extremism, Hate Crimes, Nazis, Holocaust Denial ,Internet, Islamic Extremist groups, Israel and the Middle-East, Militias, Nation of Islam, Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups, Religious Freedom, Church-State issues, Supreme Court issues, Terrorism, the United Nations and Vatican-Jewish Relations.  In point of fact, support of the State of Israel is just one small part of what they deal with. RK 22:38, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
:I have removed the following questionable content from the article:
::With the decline of overt anti-Semitism in the U.S., the ADL has increasingly focused on pro-Israel activism. In the view of many people this strategy means that the ADL has moved away from its original purpose as a defender of human dignity to become an overtly partisan political lobbying organisation.'
:This content states dubious premises as though they were facts, then draws a very controversial conclusion based on those dubious premises.  Even if this content were attributed to a noteworthy individual or organization, it would have no place in the introductory paragraph of an article about the ADL.  The only exception would be if this questionable content could be attributed to the ADL itself.  Even then, it would have to be qualified as the ADL's self-reflective POV. -- NetEsq 16:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... ok, both of those comments are good, NetEsq. I added a simple statement that the ADL also offers political support to Israel, which should be uncontroversial? Martin 21:15, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Uncontroversial, perhaps, but also redundant.  The previous sentence sets forth the ADL's opposition to "anti-Zionism," which I would presume to mean that the ADL supports Zionism, a political stance which I would presume to be identical with providing political support to Israel.  Can you think of any other way that someone might interpret the ADL's pro-Zionist political stance? -- NetEsq 21:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADL is not a pro-Israel political activist group 

message: "that fights" is better. It also handles the "array of services" clause, which had a similar issue. Good change.
: Leaving in the sentence is not problematic for me
Then we seem to be in heated agreement. Sorry for taking up your time on the matter. Martin 22:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the new section I just added.  I think it might address your concerns regarding the vagueness of the term anti-Zionism. -- NetEsq 22:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Why? --snoyes 20:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons: Leumi and Viajero. --Uncle Ed 20:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I don't get it. I know they were involved in some edit war about israel & palestine stuff, but not much more. Maybe you can point me in the right direction? --snoyes 20:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Sorry for being elusive and vague. I was referring to some edit summary comments they made during an edit war, but I forget on which page! :-( --Uncle Ed 21:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: What type of organization is the ADL?

message: I moved:
:The ADL has been accused of a "you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours" relationship to certain Jewish-surnamed gangland figures: in return for financial contributions, the ADL would shield mobsters from scrutiny, claiming that said mobsters were being persecuted by Anti-Semites. Eyebrows were raised in 1985, when, at a gala affair in Las Vegas, the ADL's "Torch of Liberty" award was presented by Joan Rivers to the Purple Gang's Moe Dalitz.
That kind of charge (esp. by a first-time anon) is going to require a resposible citation.-- Cecropia | Talk 20:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ADL and mobsters

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

message: I note that the text I wrote on ADL's reports has been removed. ADL's reports are frequently quoted in the some of the press in sentences such as "25% antisemitic attitudes in country XXX". Therefore, press readership may have an interest in understanding what those studies really measure, and whether the results are actually representative of the phenomenon that the ADL claims to measure (that is, antisemitism).
One issue I raised, even akwardly, is that those questions may not actually measure what the ADL claims to be measuring (that is, antisemitism):
* For instance, one justification for positive discrimination is that ethnic or religious groups should be represented in the media, business etc... in roughly equal proportion to their representation in the general population. By the very same reasoning, some people may find the number of Jews (or whatever other religion) working in certain socially favored fields "excessive" if it greatly exceeded their proportion in the population, without being antisemitic per se.
* Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in effect, is calling for Jews in Europe to renounce their citizenship, and claims that this is their duty as Jews. Any person who believes what Prime Minister Sharon says therefore should deduce logically that Jews are less loyal to their country than to Israel. The only other logical deducation is that Prime Minister Sharon is mistaken or not sincere when he discusses the duties of Jews (a strong possibility, surely).
::Whoever told you this was lying to you. Prime Minister Sharon did not make this statement.  It sounds like someone exagerrated a real quote, and then presented their exagerration totally out-of-context.  He did make a statement to the Jews of France, who are suffering from a tremendous wave of anti-Semitism; he said that since they are in danger there (and they really do appear to be in some danger) that they should emigrate to the State of Israel. He has the right to ask, and the people he asks have the right to make up their own minds.  In any case, Ariel Sharon doesn't speak for all Jews, let alone all Israelis!  He is just one man. RK 00:03, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I won't enter a long discussion on this. Suffices to say that the ADL publishes study that get media attention, but that, objectively speaking, these studies may not actually measure what they claim to measure, because they count as antisemitic answers that can be given in good faith and without any antisemitism. David.Monniaux 07:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ADL reports

message: Dear SlimVirgin, 
Why are you deleting critical links of the ADL by white nationalists groups? Since the ADL focuses a substantial part of its web site criticizing white nationalists, why shouldn't we hear the white nationalists view point on the ADL? 
You specifically deleted these links
* SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles	
* Eight part video series on the ADL
These links also have critical articles and quotes about the ADL by Jews, not just white nationalists. Your personal biases and emotional attachment to judaism is not allowing for fair and balanced spectrum of view points on the ADL
This is what defines Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Ethnocentrism, whether or not you are a Jew or a "lackey" (for a lack of a better word) and is unfair and biased to allow alternative view points. Allow all view points. 
Dnagod 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal bias and emotional attachment to judaism is clear, since you feel it necessary to throw around the nazi card. 
http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.htm
is a valid link which has many articles in it written by Jews, if you persist in deleting these links I will bring it forward for arbitration. Just because a web site owner is white does not make the links and material invalid. 
* SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles	
* Eight part video series on the ADL
stays, and if you wish to delete it, I will bring it forth for arbitration. You are abusing your powers and should have your admin privileges revoked. 
Dnagod 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, wasn't it you who kept throwing around the "personal bias and emotional attachment to judaism" card? Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The gay neo-Nazi organization Aryan Bears of California coined the phrase "green Zionist moose-squirrels" to refer to the ADL, which has since caught on among other gay white-supremacist groups. 
One frequently-observed pattern not described in Wikipedia:External links is to link to an organization's Web site from the article describing that organization. This is, I suspect, chiefly done because the organization's Web site does a better job than anyone else can do in documenting the organization's own point of view. Thus, Stormfront links to that group's Web site, just as this article links to the ADL.
We need to judge external links based on their informativeness as well as on NPOV. We would not want to link to badly-researched material simply out of a desire to present "all sides of the story". External links are there for the benefit of the reader, not the benefit of the sites or views linked to. It should be noted that an external link is never a replacement for adequate discussion of a relevant subject in Wikipedia. Presently, this article does not do a good enough job of describing the history of the ADL and its actions. Linking to other sites on any side of a controversy is no substitute for doing good research and writing factual material here in Wikipedia. --FOo 23:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of critical links on the ADL 

message: This controversy seems to be possible because Wikipedia doesn't really have a strong policy on the meaning or use of external links -- when they are appropriate, what their role is in the article, and so on.
Wikipedia:External links states that they should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references. Meta, however, answers the question Meta:When should I link externally? with Not very often and goes on to distinguish Wikipedia from link-farms, Web directories, and so forth.
The issue of usefulness of an external link is orthogonal to the issue of NPOV. An external link needs to be a reference to something broadly useful and informative on the subject. So if the purpose of referring to the opinions of anti-semites and neo-Nazis here is simply to document their views, then this should be done as an inline citation rather than an external link. Take, for instance, this entirely fictional example:
:The gay neo-Nazi organization Aryan Bears of California coined the phrase "green Zionist moose-squirrels" to refer to the ADL, which has since caught on among other gay white-supremacist groups. 
One frequently-observed pattern not described in Wikipedia:External links is to link to an organization's Web site from the article describing that organization. This is, I suspect, chiefly done because the organization's Web site does a better job than anyone else can do in documenting the organization's own point of view. Thus, Stormfront links to that group's Web site, just as this article links to the ADL.
We need to judge external links based on their informativeness as well as on NPOV. We would not want to link to badly-researched material simply out of a desire to present "all sides of the story". External links are there for the benefit of the reader, not the benefit of the sites or views linked to. It should be noted that an external link is never a replacement for adequate discussion of a relevant subject in Wikipedia. Presently, this article does not do a good enough job of describing the history of the ADL and its actions. Linking to other sites on any side of a controversy is no substitute for doing good research and writing factual material here in Wikipedia. --FOo 23:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the purpose of external links 

message: The ADL is a Jewish-American org, as demonstrated through it's policy, directives and membership / employment base.
The title "American org" is misleading, and should be removed.
*It's an American organization. Guess what: Jews in America are Jews are Americans, and identify themselves as such. Get used to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the editors who keep adding that it's a Jewish organization say (a) what are the benefits to the article of adding this information to the intro; and (b) in what sense it's a Jewish organization, and what their sources are. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 04:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Perhaps they think that the ADL is circumcised and only eats kosher? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I might feel a little easier debating with User:Molloy were he not the editor who tried to insert this  into Zionism. SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Please note, Molloy and 222.153.2.164 are the same editor.  As such, his claim to "agree with the previous edit" is disingenuous. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Is she really? I've heard very good things about her, and I love her work, though I'm not a historian myself, so perhaps can't judge. What is it that is regarded as not good about her? SlimVirgin 05:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just to make an argument, I'll note that the ADL is connected to B'nai B'rith, a major Jewish organization, and that its principle purpose as defined by itself is to fight anti-semitism.  I'm not sure how it could be seen as not a Jewish organization.  john k 03:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

text: John, the ADL is active in a number of areas other than fighting anti-Semitism, as can be seen from the amicus curiae briefs it has filed; I've posted a few of these below. Also, bear in mind that Molloy is not editing in good faith. He is a youth organizer of the New Zealand National Front and has posted anti-Semitic material on the Web. While I accept your argument above that authorial intention does not always matter, I argue that sometimes it does, and that this is one of those cases. Because it isn't clear what is meant by a Jewish organization or what adding that contributes to the article, an examination of the author's intention is helpful; and to judge by his editing pattern here and his online posts, his intentions are invariably anti-Semitic. 
*Alexander v. Sandoval (121 S. Ct. 1511 (2001)): The question at issue in this case was whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives private citizens the right to challenge policies that have the effect of discriminating against minorities but not necessarily the intent to do so. As amicus curiae, ADL maintained that Title VII was intended to prevent discrimination without creating the burden of proving discriminatory intent. Unfortunately, the Court held that private citizens have a legal recourse only in instances of intentional discrimination.
*Virginia v. Black (2002): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.
*Grutter v. Bolinger (2003):  Grutter v. Bollinger concerns the constitutionality of racial preferences in undergraduate and law school admissions system of the University of Michigan. While recognizing the fundamental value of diversity in higher education, ADL stated its opposition to the University of Michigan's admissions programs to achieve that goal.
*Lawrence v. Texas (2003):  This case raises the twin questions whether Texas' Homosexual Conduct Law violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ADL joined with a number of other organizations to argue that the Texas law violates is unconstitutionally because it seeks . . . to punish and brand as criminals a class of citizens because of their sexual orientation. SlimVirgin 19:06, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware that Molloy is a Nazi.  I suppose I'll withdraw my objection, since I suppose you're right that a "Jewish American organization" is unclear in meaning.  although I'll note that I certainly have not denied that the ADL is involved in things besides opposing anti-semitism.  But it is certainly very clear that opposing anti-semitism is the principal declared purpose of the organization. john k 21:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I replaced Jpgordon's link to a Jew Watch article with an article from Counterpunch regarding ythe ADL spying scandal. Jpgordon then deletes my link saying that Counterpunch is not journalistic, but is a piece of advocacy. Please go ahead and use Jew Watch as your source. Sorry for trying to help. --Powergrid 04:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality sources with credible information from respected sources are a must. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

message: According to Jayjg's edit summary, the African National Congress, the most well-recognized anti-apartheid organization in the world, is not really an anti-apartheid organization. Further, it's unclear to Jayjg how the fact that the ADL spied on the ANC and turned that information over to the apartheid South African government had a negative impact on black-jewish relations. Really, please excuse us for trying to improve your encyclopedia. Go ahead with your little project. --Powergrid 04:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right again. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANC is not an anti-apartheid organization 

message: SlimVirgin: YOU ARE DISCREDITED.  PERIOD.  
You have been deliberately causing problems on this article before, and you continue today.  Do you intend to discriminate against all people who post to this article that which you do not personally like?  Is this "your" article?  It appears you think it is:
Previously posted about SlimVirgin:
Censorship of critical links on the ADL
Dear SlimVirgin,
''
Why are you deleting critical links of the ADL by white nationalists groups? Since the ADL focuses a substantial part of its web site criticizing white nationalists, why shouldn't we hear the white nationalists view point on the ADL?
You specifically deleted these links
    * SolarGeneral Archive of Anti-ADL articles
    * Eight part video series on the ADL
These links also have critical articles and quotes about the ADL by Jews, not just white nationalists. Your personal biases and emotional attachment to judaism is not allowing for fair and balanced spectrum of view points on the ADL''
69.217.126.180:
"For all your hard work in keeping Jewish propaganda out of Wikipedia, I hereby award you the ancient Defender of the Wiki barnstar, which is given to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to stop Wikipedia being used for fraudulent purposes." --Wikipdea readers
*You have been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. But you're right -- we're biased on Wikipedia against white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and racists in general. Get used to it; it's not going to change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thanks for saying it. They are shameless Jewish propagandists and they should be banned from Wikipedia and from life in general. Do your part and ban a Jew every day. Shun them, boycott them, mistreat them and abuse them at every opportunity. I do and I think of Jayjg every time I do it. --24.30.67.158 00:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Yes, of course, I'm the reason for your anti-Semitism.  Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SlimVirgin has been accused before of personal bias 

message: This section does a fairly good job of stating the facts of what happened, but it very much one-sided in the commentary it presents.  Mr. Foxman's defence of ADL's actions is included, but no critism of ADL is.  There are numerous people on the other side of this issue who have said that the ADL's collaboration with an overtly racist state calls into question its status as a civil rights organization.  --Blackcats 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are they, and what did they say? Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will find specific quotes and post them here shortly.  --Blackcats 03:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SectNPOV: "Collaboration with South Africa's Apartheid Regime"

message: Again - a fairly decent recounting of the facts, but only one side of the argument is presented.  We hear Mr. Foxman's defence of the ADL's actions, but nobody's crticism is cited.  As with the section above, many notable people have harshly criticized the ADL over this, and in particular pointed to their keeping files on the NAACP and other such groups as calling into question the ADL's status as a civil rights organization.  --Blackcats 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing is pretty critical of the ADL; are you sure you read the whole section? Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I did read the whole section.  And I did not see much of any crticism of the ADL.  Rather I saw a fairly neutral recounting of the facts followed by Foxman's defence.  I do feel that the facts speak for themselves in terms of making the ADL look bad, but that is not the same as criticism, which is needed in order to balance the defence argument.  --Blackcats 04:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SectNPOV: "The ADL files controversy"

message: This section includes eight links to the ADL's website, but not a single link to a website specifically devoted to opposing the ADL.  Several articles are included in the crticism section, though many of the links have poor titles.  Notably missing is the ADL Watch website , a site specifically devoted to criticising the ADL.  I would be bold and add it to the top of the criticism section, but alas the article is "protected."  --Blackcats 03:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see at least 10 links highly critical of the ADL; in fact, I see a whole section of links critical of the ADL. Why is adlwatch.org particularly notable? Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever a site exists specifically to oppose one organization or business, that, in and of itself, is noteworthy.  (Unless of course other sites exist with the same specific purpose.)  For example, the Google article links to Google Watch, though of course the latter is much less noteworthy than Google.  So this site needs to be included unless someone can find another website that does nothing but criticize the ADL.  --Blackcats 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: 612 Google hits.  --Blackcats 04:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 231 once you get rid of all the Google ghosts.  Thanks for helping make Jpgordon's point; a trivial site. Just the kind of unencyclopedic site, in fact, that would like to increase its web presence by getting a link on a Wikipedia page. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I agree with Molloy and disagree with the other guy who reverts without discussion. --Dogtag 02:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Irving's website contains information relevant to the ADL