Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 4

message: I think we should hold off on the inclusion of the passages at issue until we can get primary-source, or at least neutral-source, confirmation of the allegations.
The follwing are the items of concern:
Following police raids of ADL offices in 1992, there were embarassing revelations about ADL collaboration with the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
*No problem with the first sentence. The appropriateness of the second depends on what follows.
	
The ADL spied on the anti-apartheid African National Congress, before the ANC became the ruling party in South Africa. The ADL reportedly also spied on other anti-apartheid organizations.
No primary-source material is referenced here. The sources mentioned are the anti-Israel Washington Report and the Bay View newspaper. The Bay View column mentioned also includes the following statement, which should shed light on the biases of its author:
The “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians from their land has never ceased, nor has Israel’s expropriation of what remains, as attested to by Israel’s ongoing construction of the 25-foot high “apartheid wall” through sections of the West Bank that has received international condemnation and whose legality is soon to be reviewed by the World Court in the Hague.
The spying allegations, therefore, cannot yet be taken as fact. We continue:
According to a report released by San Francisco's District Attorney, the ADL's "fact finder" Roy Bullock admitted that he was paid by a South African intelligence agent to spy on anti-apartheid activists.
If the link took us to the prosecutor's report, this allegation (which would still just be an allegation) would be worth noting. However, the link is not to the primary source but rather to an article on the left-wing Counterpunch website. I don't think that merits inclusion.
Abe Foxman, ADL's national director, explained to the Jewish Bulliten: “At the time we exposed the ANC, they were communist. They were violent, they were anti-Semitic, they were pro-PLO, and they were anti-Israel. You’re going to tell me I don’t have the legitimacy to find out who they were consorting with, who their buddies are, who supports whom?” 
Again, the link is not to the "Jewish Bulliten" (sic) story but rather to the Bay View editorial. It's hearsay. 
	
San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith agreed in 1993 not to file criminal charges against the ADL, with the condition that ADL contribute $75,000 to educational programs over the next three years and refrain from soliciting confidential public records that it knew were illegally obtained.
If this information came from The Chronicle or Examiner, I would trust it. But it comes from The Washington Report.
The problem with this section reflects the problems with the article as a whole. Much of the criticism of the ADL does not come from the kind of source from which we can take a claim as fact. It's one thing to print Noam Chomsky's opinion of the ADL, assuming we explain where Chomsky's coming from as a left-wing, anti-Israel guy. But to state a serious allegation as fact because a left-wing or anti-Israel publication says it is not the right way to go.
The claims made in this section can all be verified from primary or neutral sources if someone is willing to do the research. Until then, I don't think they should be included. -- Mwalcoff 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put a fine point on it, I don't think there is such a thing as a "neutral source." But let me ask you something else -- are any of the facts here in dispute? Has the ADL ever denied that the described events took place? I am in favor of getting primary sources, but I am not in favor of deleting this information in the meantime. As I mentioned, I read the accounts in the L.A. Times at the time the events were unfolding. The events themselves are undisputed. The dispute, to the extent that there is one, is about the ADL's motives. I tried to avoid any characterization of the ADL or its motives in the way that I re-wrote that section. --HK 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar enough with the issue to say whether it's true or not. But it's unprofessional to use second-hand allegations from people with an obvious axe to grind against the ADL. -- Mwalcoff 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Report is not a mainstream political organization and it probably should not be used a wikipedia: reliable source. It's could be a source for its own views, for example, "Critics like the W-R view the ADL as....") -Willmcw 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the Washington Report is being challenged as a source, I removed it -- the only section that came exclusively from that source was the one describing the plea bargain negotiated between DA Arlo Smith and the ADL. In the reporting of a factual matter like that, the biases of the Washington Report should not be an issue, but I think it were better to include that info in the "files controversy" section, and we can hash it out there. --HK 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconsideration

message: : Why has the archive of critical articles by Jews and Gentiles about the ADL, been repeatedly removed from wikipedia? The link http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.php has been removed unfairly and this link has dozens of articles by not just non-jews, but jews. Can someone please explain this bias of keeping out critical links on the ADL?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.24.236 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Anti-Defamation_League/archive3 and the "This page needs serious work" section above for a discussion of why the Solargeneral site is not considered a legitimate source of criticism -- Mwalcoff 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ADL Criticism Archive Removed from wikipedia

message: Why has the entry below which was placed in criticism been removed? Seems very odd to be!
*The Dark Side of the Anti-Defamation League
::Hmm ... maybe because neo-Nazis are not a reputable source on the subject? --FOo 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:RS. —Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like anything that fairly and accurately criticizes jews automatically becomes censored on wiki. Shame on you. Lokison 04:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiight. I'm sure the "National Vanguard" is "fair and accurate." Hey, aren't you blocked for spewing racist filth all over Wikipedia? -- Mwalcoff 13:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly you have a point here. Anything National Vanguard has to say about the ADL is most likely just a bunch of propaganda but
in turn whatever the ADL has to say about National Vanguard is "The Truth". One good way out of that is too realize that National Vanguard is an
organization run by a bunch of racist cooks without funding while the ADL is run by another bunch of racist cooks with plenty of funding.
A shame really they can't get along, they have so much in common. 84.160.254.235 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is criticism removed?