The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
OceanicFeeling123 (talk·contribs) has been paid by ADL on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
Hersei (talk·contribs) has been paid by ADL on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article. the largest authorship editor in this article. Declaration
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the line, " historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent" from the Origins section of this article. The source (ref. 25) for whether or not historians think a Jewish man is innocent or guilty cannot be a special interest group (Jewish) stating it to be the case with no sourcing of their own to back it up. It is the equivalent of me claiming the moon isn't real because some anti-moon non profit baselessly made the claim. 73.164.131.155 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and remove it. You have my consensus. There is no credible historian that thinks Frank was innocent much less a consensus of such historians. Plus, as you noted, the citation is from the Jewish Forward (far from a credible source). Guillermo Sanders (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, you should provide sources that explicitly refer to ADL as Zionist. Liu1126 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite interesting how recently-added content has been decontextualized, and dewatered. The phrasing "the latter's inclusion has been the subject of debate" is a complete watering down of the Guardian source and of the Levin source, which explicitly mention the word criticism. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makeandtoss, please review WP:CLOP, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:OVERQUOTING carefully. Some of what you added was DUE, but the encyclopedia can neither overstate what the RS say nor copy sentences from a RS with trivial word changes. WP:DUEWEIGHT means some information from the Guardian article should be included, but multiple long paragraphs should be based on a number of WP:BESTSOURCES, not a single RS. Especially at the top of the article, statements are based on the balance of available WP:BESTSOURCES, so a single source generally does not result in such major changes. Llll5032 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Close paraphrasing has nothing to do with removing quotes on how the "anti-defamation league" was defaming anti-war Jewish activists. Due weight has nothing to do with removing context on how the ADL continued to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism while it was facing increased internal dissent. Sticking to the source means we contextualize everything. Overquoting is defined by quotes dominating the article which is not the case here. The Guardian is quite literally the best source we have in this article about this issue; it is the most up-to-date source, it is completely dedicated to the ADL's conflation; and it describes in explicit terms what critics of ADL have said. It is becoming increasingly challenging for me to view these reversions, that were done without accurate consideration of WP guidelines, in good faith. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{@Llll5032: Your edit was a revert, the second one in less than 24 hours. Again, please familiarize yourself with 1RR and immediately reverse yourself as this would be a violation of WP:ARBPIA3 and is subject to discretionary sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have self-reverted to comply with WP:1RR. @Makeandtoss, it would be a sign of good faith if you also self-reverted to the sentence's wording in this edit that a third editor had edited for NPOV concerns, instead of your original language. Llll5032 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Llll5032, are you happy for the article to be clear on these accusations in the lede? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first paragraph states in Wikipedia's voice and in present tense that the ADL ...specializes in civil rights law and aims to combat antisemitism and extremism, and doesn't mention Israel advocacy at all.
Yet here we have a large number of sources stating that its primary focus has changed in recent decades. As we strive for neutrality here we need to address both these sentences together.
If you have time I recommend watching Defamation (film) - it gives an unvarnished inside view on how this organization works.
As for any change, the way to support it is to cite multiple WP:BESTSOURCES, because "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Some of the recent reverts that are currently in the article use loaded language and overrode mine and other editors' NPOV edits.[1][2] We need to mind WP:ONUS, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:CONSENSUS, and carefully summarize the WP:DUEWEIGHT of third-party WP:BESTSOURCES with neither understatement nor overstatement. Llll5032 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You reverted my edit, claiming it was unexplained, though there was in fact an explanation in the edit summary. The version you’ve reverted to is non neutral. The use of the word “conflate”, which can mean “confuse” is non neutral. As is removing the link to new-antisemitism, which is a well established concept, for a newly created article which simply alleges that the viewpoint is in bad faith. This allegation should not be in wikivoice. Drsmoo (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Drsmoo. Some of the recent changes to that paragraph in the top section clearly lack consensus, and should not have been warred back in after multiple editors objected. A more consensus wording should be used. Llll5032 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't notice Drsmoo's intermediate edit, but glad all four of us have consensus on that version and phrasing now. I have self-reverted to that more balanced version that is more in line with the source. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the partial self-revert, which is an improvement, but we do not have consensus yet. I would prefer wording similar to this different edit, which is a more careful update to the stable text as of a week ago. Such wording would be more in line with the RS in citing controversies due to the group's stands on the overall Israel-Palestinian conflict rather than only to the new antisemitism definition. Phrasing about new antisemitism should be kept neutrally descriptive rather than favoring a specific line of argument, unless more independent WP:BESTSOURCES summarize that specific argument using their own words. Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That version waters down criticism of the group and its role in the weaponization of antisemitism; and on top of that, does not even reflect the in-line citation, nor does it reflect the body, which a lede should summarize. The Guardian is the best source we have: up to date and specializing in this topic of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term “weaponization of antisemitism” is a criticism of new-antisemitism. The concept of new antisemitism is well established among scholars of antisemitism, and is not viewed as “weaponization” by most Jewish studies scholars or Jewish organizations. Drsmoo (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So? We said critics of ADL have criticized their conflation, we didn't say anything about Jewish scholars or organizations and "weaponization" in the current version of the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of editors who have edited the fourth paragraph, Makeandtoss and Onceinawhile have supported this new text, Cat12zu3 and I have supported a more incrementally updated version of the stable textante bellum (see WP:STATUSQUO), and I am not clear about what Drsmoo's opinion is. What is the consensus? Llll5032 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see why quotes were cut in half; why context was removed from ADL's actions regarding congress resolution and other initiative; and why we are talking in Wikipedia voice that ADL fights antisemitism rather than aims to fight antisemitism (as if we are endorsing their -controversial- work? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those recent edits are by different editors and are in different sections of the article. Perhaps they should be discussed under separate headings to focus on the content for each? Llll5032 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an outsider passer-by on a corridor between two aisles, I agreed that paraphrasing sentence that's not actually what the source said about what critics said, looks like a WP:SYNTH. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edits to Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section[edit]
Revert-warring this extra text back in without gaining consensus first does not seem to comply with WP:STATUSQUO or WP:ONUS. Although The Guardian is a reliable source, having 11 sentences that cite only that one source and no others appears excessive (see WP:DUEWEIGHT); some of the wording is repetitive; and WP:OVERQUOTING encourages shorter summaries rather than quotations. Do any other editors agree with Makeandtoss that this longer version of the text is necessary to the article? Llll5032 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11 sentences citing one very important source, if not the main source on the topic is not excessive, since WP:UNDUE states: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". There are no differing viewpoints in the Guardian, thus the proportion of this viewpoint is very due, if not exlusively due.
As for WP:OVERQUOTING it is defined as when "it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere; quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased; the quotations dominate the article or section." which also doesn't apply here.
Do you have any other WP-based arguments why you object to my edit? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the 11 sentences that cite the Guardian article as their only source, are no other WP:GREL sources available? Your reasoning seems unusual; while no one disputes that the Guardian article is relevant and should be used, in fact more WP:DUEWEIGHT is generally given to claims highlighted by multiple RS, not selected from a single RS. Llll5032 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is only because you moved a supporting paragraph with a different source to the timeline section. To respond to your concerns, I have moved it back, deleted a duplicate paragraph, remove two quotations, and added another source. Please if you have any sources with opposing views I would gladly consider them to improve the current text. If not, then undue weight argument does not hold here, as this seems to be the only viewpoint on this controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The move is related to that section and is completely relevant there. I am editing per BRD, so I am looking forward to seeing your constructive suggestions. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except for the addition of the Forward source, I do not think that these edits were improvements, and some aspects were reverts warred in[3][4] without consensus. The relocation of all information about the ADL's responses to the Israel-Hamas war from the neutral "2020s" chronology into a section that is newly renamed "Conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism", along with other unattributed descriptions of "conflation" in Wikivoice, added a POV that is discouraged by WP:VOICE unless RS more commonly use it. (In fact, only one of the several sources now cited in the section appears to describe this as a conflation.) The edits removed some more nuanced information that was DUE, including the group's denial in the Guardian that it was conflating, experts' response to that denial, and the number of antisemitic incidents the ADL said had occurred. There is some repetition, and two quotations are still longer than necessary. Do any other editors agree with Makeandtoss that these edits were improvements? Llll5032 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is time to make changes to the edits discussed above, per WP:VOICE, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:ONUS, but I will wait another two days for editors besides Makeandtoss and myself to comment. Llll5032 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP, the Guardian is a highly reliable source and does not require attribution unless in cases of quotation. Nevertheless, the Guardian has been attributed almost in all cases.
In addition, I have added one more recent article by The Nation, which has gone as far as describing the ADL as "Israel's attack dog in the US," which is quite a scathing criticism coming from a highly reliable source. While inserting the new information in the article, it became apparent to me that criticism of the ADL has been watered down everywhere (probably because ADL staff previously edited the article until they were exposed and prevented from doing so). What I have added is a fraction of what should be done to accurately reflect RS.
The ADL is highly controversial, and this is not my opinion, this is the position of highly reliable sources. This is definitely due weight. I have already refuted your points, so I will leave this discussion for other editors to jump into. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article you added from The Nation also does not use the words conflate or conflation. So now, only one source out of eight in a section called "Conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism" even uses the word to describe any aspect of the section. Llll5032 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“The ADL’s priority today remains—as it has for decades—going after Americans who are simply opposed to Israel’s endless occupation and oppression of Palestinians. The group’s preferred targets are students, professors, activists, and demonstrators—rather than antisemites, especially those on the far right.” It’s clearly the same idea so it belongs in this section and other parts in it are relevant to other sections. This article alone has numerous information, I barely used three sentences in it. Criticism of the ADL has been completely watered down. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is DUE for the article to include opinionated RS such as the Nation (WP:RSP notes that the Nation should be attributed, so it generally does not go in Wikivoice). But to conflate 7 of 8 sources that don't use your heading's phrasing is a WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and WP:VOICE problem, and may run afoul of WP:SYNTH too. Would any other editors care to defend it? Llll5032 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Nation source is an article and not an opinion article. And its statement about the ADL being Israel's attack dog is attributed. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Llll5032:At this point you are engaging in blatant censorship of criticism leveled at ADL and this is completely unacceptable. In this new incident, you did not remove the quotation and paraphrase it, as outlined in WP:OVERQUOTATION (which doesn't even apply here, as I argued above), you completely removed how the ADL was criticized for propagating "anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer hate" and islamophobia; replacing the quote with "She wrote that the ADL's role in anti-hate efforts had insulated it from deserved scrutiny, and that it had undermined the American left including some black-led groups in such efforts".
I hope you can consider the possibility that the edit was made in good faith and had some merit based on the explanation below. Also, I never wrote that this was an example of "overquotation". Llll5032 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makeandtoss, here is the source wording for the quotation, in the Boston Review essay:
"It draws instead on the ADL’s much broader authority it has won over anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer “hate.”"[1] Compare that to its summary in this article: "Gelman further says the ADL has propagated 'anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer hate'". That wording took the quotation very far out of its immediate context in the source, and was also an unallowed minor alteration of the quotation itself (which marked 'hate' with its own quotation marks). The Boston Review essay does not say directly that the ADL "propagated" hate, but rather said that the ADL's authority on anti-black, anti-immigrant and anti-queer hate and Islamophobia was unearned and unwarranted, and that the ADL had opposed black and queer groups. Perhaps my edit could be improved, but perhaps you will also agree after reading this that your revert was in error?
Also, talk page headings must be neutral per WP:TALKHEADPOV, so I changed the heading. Llll5032 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies then, it seems I have taken the summary verbatim as true. You can edit that part accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Makeandtoss:. Since you appear to agree now that I acted in good faith and that the edit was valid, you may want to strike through statements in which you implied that I had not acted in good faith. Llll5032 (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have some difficulty with this text. Woods may be a raging antisemite, and I don't care about tweeted denials. But I don't like the sourcing for a BLP issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The three cited sources also describe Woods as an Irish white nationalist and an Irish neo-Nazi. Would one of those descriptions be more appropriate? Llll5032 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are also unsubstantiated lies. Woods is and identifies as an Irish ethno-nationalist, not a white nationalist or a neo-nazi. This description would be appropriate. Malkanath-the-Hated (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is not a raging antisemite however. There is no evidence for this and there never has been. The description should be removed accordingly. Malkanath-the-Hated (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Irish white nationalist" is the description the RS most commonly used in their own words while describing the controversy, so it seems most suitable per WP:BLPSTYLE ("avoiding both understatement and overstatement"), WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:PCR. Five RS are now cited about the controversy relating to Woods, with similar descriptions of him, and more appear to be available if there are questions about WP:WEIGHT. Is that a reasonable edit? Llll5032 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the