Talk:Anti-Defamation League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents


[edit] How many editors of this article are Jewish?

Sorry, but this article is so one sided it defies belief. This doesn't show the ADL in an impartial light at all, its phony, and I'd hazard that this article is written almost entirely by Jewish editors/or its sympathisers. Don't you people realise the damage you are doing here? In time, Wiki's credibility is going to go down the tubes because of you people, and you can congratulate yourselves when it happens...

Longterm this simply isn't gonna stand up. Mark thy words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.98 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is anti-Semitism. I do think it is a little goody-goody, but the Critisism section is over the top, or at least the first quote is.

What are your specific problems with the article?76.182.88.254 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is all that pro-Israel. There's a reasonable criticism section. The Chomsky quote is in there, pointing out that the ADL has morphed from a civil rights organization into another component of the Israel lobby. There's certainly an organized effort by Israeli activists to put a pro-Israel spin on certain articles (IsraeliActivism.com was openly recruiting people to push their POV in Wikipedia [1]), but this isn't one of the articles that gets hit all that badly. If you want to see POV-pushing, see Israeli apartheid, where it takes an annual arbitration to keep the situation under control. --John Nagle 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative bias

There's a bit in the article about the ADL having a conservative bias. That needs to be better supported by references. That subject needs tracking over time. In the 1960s, the ADL was considered a left-wing liberal organization, positioned roughly alongside the ACLU. Sometime around 1980, the leadership of the Jewish lobbying organizations in the US got behind the Reagan campaign, and the Israeli lobby moved to the right, eventually teaming up with the Christian neocons during the Bush years.[2] The ADL seems to have moved to the right as well, although that's not as well documented as it is with AIPAC. --John Nagle 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this subhead (to Conservative bias? Or liberal?) to reflect a change I have made regarding charges of liberal bias! Granted, my excerpt of Ann Coulter's piece may seem a bit longish, but it reflects the fact that very little criticism of the organization — certainly from a conservative point of view! — exists in this article. Follows my addition to the article:
Conservatives like Ann Coulter, on the other hand, are on the record for stating that the "Anti-Defamation League is to Jews what the National Organization for Women is to women and the ACLU is to civil libertarians. They represent not Jews or women or civil libertarians, but the left wing of the Democratic Party. … When it comes to conservatives, the Anti-Defamation League is the Pro-Defamation League." The self-described polemicist goes on to charge that "the ADL viciously attacks conservatives, implying that there is some genetic anti-Semitism among right-wingers in order to hide the fact that anti-Semites are the ADL's best friends — the defeatists in Congress, the people who tried to drive Joe Lieberman from office, the hoodlums on college campuses who riot at any criticism of Muslim terrorists and identify Israel as an imperialist aggressor, and liberal college faculties calling for "anti-apartheid" boycotts of Israel." Coulter brazenly states that the "Democratic Party sleeps with anti-Semites every night, but groups like the ADL love to play-act their bravery at battling ghosts, as if it's the 1920s and they are still fighting quotas at Harvard.… Like the noose hysteria currently sweeping New York City, liberals are always fighting the last battle because the current battle is too frightening."
(How long before the A.D.L. kicks out all its Jews? by Ann Coulter, October 31, 2007) Asteriks 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was typical. And it took less than an hour. Less than an hour for conservative criticism of the ADL to vanish without a word of explanation, without an argument, or without even a simple FYI note to the effect that the censorship (sorry, the editing) had taken place. Asteriks 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter is not a reputable source for any article other than Ann Coulter. --FOo (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced comments

I went through the article and removed unsourced data, both pro- and con-. With controversial topics such as this, extra care must be taken to ensure all supporting and denigrating statements need to be completely above board and contribute to the neutral stance of the article. Please do not restore any information to the article without properly reliable and verifiable sources. Thank you. -- Avi 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically relating to Chomsky and Necessary Illusions, can someone please provide the page reference for verification? Thanks. -- Avi 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] www.truthtellers.org

This Christian organization charges that the ADL is pushing a pro-gay agenda and want Christians locked up in nut houses, jail, worse. Should this org be incl. on the "Criticisim" section? 205.240.144.198 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article already includes plenty of criticism from reputable sources. There's no need to throw in some oddball conspiracy website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The expression "batshit crazy" comes to mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Rense Placed....

....because he and his website continuously criticise the ADL all the time, such as "The ADL 's Agenda to Have Christians Imprisoned In Prison and Insane Asylums". This is still going on. 205.240.144.198 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So is the censorship here. Replaced the Jeff Rense link after some pro-ADL ally removed it. HE claims the ADL HATES Christians. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So talk about that in Jeff Rense's article; that's the only place it's of any value. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Adllogo.jpg

Image:Adllogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Sociologists' criticism?

It seems the professors are making an important criticism that while they may use ADL (mentioned specifically) and other groups' information for "general information" purposes, as sociologists they consider them prejudiced and have to warn readers that even using only general info, errors may creep in. (Unfortunately, they don't make the statement as clearly and succinctly as they could.)

This seems like an important criticism from people who have studied the same groups more objectively. Do I need to quote more of what they say on this to make this clear? It seems to me this general epistemological criticism is just as important as the specific indignities ADL is accused of. In fact, it might even go first.

Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” note that they frequently used ADL sources, as well as other "watchdog" groups', in their book. However they qualified their use of these sources, noting "errors" from them might appear in their book and writing: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.”REF:Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 2-3.

Carol Moore 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's simply too vague; it would be appropriate criticism in an article on "watchdog" groups, but in the absence of anything but an offhand mention of the ADL (not to mention all the uncritical use the book makes of the ADL's research), its too weak. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Having some well known person assail ADL on some specific lie may be more dramatic, but the criticisms of sociologists who feel then need to devote 300 plus words to qualifying their use of ADL etc. as sources is more encyclopedic. And that IS what we are creating here.
Here's a more specific summary of their comments, presented in same order as written:
REWRITE Professors of sociology Betty A. Dobratz, PhD (Iowa State University) and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, PhD (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), authors of The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride” note that “since little social scientific writing on the current movement exists we at times used the observations of organizations directly opposed the movement.” They admit that "errors" from these sources might appear in their own book. They named ADL as one of these “prominent” sources. Explaining that these "watchdog" groups “are setting particular agendas,” they qualified their use of these sources,: “What the ‘watchdog’ groups focus on is at least partially influenced by the fact that these organizations depend on public financial support, and the public is likely to contribute to groups that they perceive are struggling against some major threat to America. We relied on SPLC and ADL reports for general information, but we have noticed differences between ways events have been reported and what we saw at rallies.” They note these groups ignore “claims” that do not help them “wield political influence among policy makers.” REF: Betty A. Dobratz, Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile, The White Separatist Movement in the United States: "White Power, White Pride!", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, 2-3.
Carol Moore 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol--again, no matter how you bend it, this is a group critique of "watchdogs", and not specifically the ADL. And is it really a "criticism," or as they say, a "qualifying" of their sources? Pointing out possible limitations in your sources is standard procedure, and not necessarily a critique. Nowhere do they specifically address issues with the ADL itself, which seems to be the minimum critical mass necessary to be included as "criticism." Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)