Talk:Anti-Defamation League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Notice: Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing this page.
The user specified is under probation and has edited this page inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. The ban ends on 16 April 2007, the end of her/his probationary period, or at the discretion of the banning administrator. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who instated it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the user's probationary period, anyone may remove this notice.

Posted by Will Beback 00:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] McKinney and Simmons

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)


Everyone quoted in this article is "just one person" so that is certainly not a determining factor of what is relevant. The inclusion of comments from such an influential African American as Russell Simmons is quite germain to the ADL's turbulent relations with Black people, particular in America.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney was singled out by the ADL's powerful and influential propoganda machine (as were other Conressional Black Caucus members) which in fact rose support among many Jewish donors to McKinney's one-time opponent, Ms. Dennise Majette. This is also quite relevant to the topic. --JohnBlaz 01:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] South Africa section

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)

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)
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)

This is an article about the ADL, not Roy Bullock, and his dealings with South Africa are not germane here.

... except insofar as the ADL was initially implicated in the scandal by various media outlets. I think we should mention the controversy, if for no other reason than indicate how the issue was resolved. CJCurrie 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Who gave all this money ...?

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)

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)
I think the easy answer is, "The Jooz". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-defamatiors use defamation?

From [1]: "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([2]). Seems like an interesting choice of strategy for anti-defamators - defame others...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
Hello Mwalcoff. Those pages are also for discussion of possible content.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Leo Frank case

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)

I added the fact tag.--68.9.116.87 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why are you screeching so? Why not just fix the thing and be done with it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE!!! You know perfectly well that the owners of this article will NEVER allow a NPOV in here. The New Georgia article says that Slaton "finally decided that Frank was innocent". That is FALSE. The Govenor NEVER said that. Also, the Govenors house was NEVER attacked which is also in the article. The emblishment and adding of false unsourced facts just proves how people are pushing their agenda in here. Why not stick to JUST the facts that can be sourced and not original research and opinion of the facts. --68.9.116.87 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You really don't need to yell so. There are no "owners" of this or any other Wikipedia article. The source being used says what was included in the article; if you have better, more exact sources, please provide them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I provided a source, same site. You can NOT provide ANY document that says that Gov Slaton EVER said Frank was innocent. He had DOUBTS and believed that Frank had not received a fair trial and had been convicted on circumstantial evidence. PERIOD. To make the LEAP that that he said he was innocent is just that. Sorry for the caps but the POV agenda pushing in here is maddening.What happened to sticking to FACTS??--68.9.116.87 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Stop yelling or people are just going to think you're a nutcase. Regardless of what you're actually saying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people in here who should be considered "nutcases" should be those who when confronted with facts, instead, choose to delete them. Jtpaladin 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foxman IS the ADL

Anyone that doubts this man is the spokeman and leader of this organization is living in a world of denial. The following subject listed as criticism was appropriate because the ADL comments come mostly from him and his perspective is important in understanding the direction he's taking this group.

Comment regarding Jewish dominance of pornography industry

An article from the Winter 2004 edition of the The Jewish Quarterly titled, "Triple Exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry", discusses the disproportionate role played by secular Jews in the adult film industry. The article quotes ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman as saying, "Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream."[3]

I'll be happy to remove the word "dominance" from the title but the criticism should be restored because of Foxman's absurd comments on how he explains this issue.

The problem with the ADL is that it has lofty goals but has acted illegally in some cases and attacks natural allies, i.e. Evangelical Christians who are hardcore pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Foxman has alienated many people who would flock to assist this organization. Until he's gone, the organization will suffer. Jtpaladin 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be a catalog of everything Foxman has said on every issue. That would be quite long. We need to focus on the "key" ADL issues, the things the organization spends most of its time on. I don't think pornography is one of them. -- Mwalcoff 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Foxman has his own article, and his own opinions; what's more, we'd need to see the actual context of the quote (rather than someone else citing it) to know if it was an ADL position or his personal position (for example, when did he say it?) Also, it's your personal opinion that Foxman's comment (you say "comments" -- where is there more than one?) is absurd; I don't know at all why "Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream" is absurd. The "American Dream" clearly includes making a bunch of money by whatever (preferably legal) means possible... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If you really think the "American Dream" is about making money by "preferably legal" means, I doubt you really grasp the true meaning of the "American Dream". As for "comments" vs. "comment". You make a big deal over the use of plural vs. the use of the singular of the term. Big deal. It's a typo. Certainly not a reason to delete a quote because of an error in the plural use of a term. But, the fact is that this article is about the ADL: an organization that purports to defend Jewish people against "defamation". Like a friend of mine who is a Rabbi said, "While Foxman runs the show, the ADL does more harm than good." When confronted with a statistic on secular Jews being disproportionately represented in the pornography induustry, Foxman makes a statement as President of the ADL. That in of itself is a valid quote for this article. Only someone trying to keep something like that quiet would want to delete this appropriate information. Like I said, a good organization with good goals is marred by an idiot who does and says the wrong things. Jtpaladin 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When did Foxman make the quote? What's the context? You're asserting he made it as President of the ADL; I assume this means you know to whom he made it, when he made it, and under what conditions. Regarding the "American dream", we've just made it clear to each other that the interpretation of the expression is a matter of personal opinion, which was my point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? I gave you the source of the article. Did you bother to read it? There's a lot of stuff there that paints secular Jews in a very negative fashion within the porn industry but it was all irrelevant until the Foxman comment. One of the worst things quoted in the article is this:
Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged.
All I did was quote something out of The Jewish Quarterly. Yes, it quotes Foxman as the National Director of the ADL. If you had read the quote that you deleted, you would have seen that. The article is here: http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38. If you want more info, let me know and if you will actually post it in this article, I will contact them for more info. Deal? Jtpaladin 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it quotes him as being ADL director, which is what he is. However, since you're attempting to use the quote to besmirch him and to insert your point of view about him into the article, the bar is higher; the context of the quote for reasons stated above. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon, I contacted the Jewish Quarterly and they could not give me further info on the quote so I sent a note to the ADL to see if they could clarify the issue. Jtpaladin 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grouping of ADL Critics

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)

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)
With that stated, the ADL's critics are no longer grouped. --JohnBlaz 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can't fool all of the people all of the time

Guys, read the article from beginning to end and ask yourself if it is an unbiased article.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. (Abraham Lincoln, 1864). 82.70.40.190

[edit] Criticism of ADL should be permitted

Please do not delete link to web site that criticized ADL without discussion.

[edit] Spy Scandal? Not.

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)

[edit] Splitting out ADL files controversy section

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)

[edit] Fighting Racism and POV edits to section titles

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Relation to B'nai B'rith

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Defamation_League_f6f5.html"