[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was met for option G. Most editors agreed that the the ban could be mentioned in the article, but that the current version gave UNDUE weight to a minor news story for a major organization (editors also cited WP:RECENTISM). A small number of editors discussed whether the incident should get its own page, but no consensus was found for this suggestion. The discussion didn't find consensus against including the incident in the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, but there was no conclusion as to how much to include. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 06:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section currently titled "Wikipedia determination of unreliability on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" ...

A. Remain in the current article (Anti-Defamation League)
B. Become its own article, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
C. Merge into List of Wikipedia controversies, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
D. Merge into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here
E. Remove altogether
F. Other (specify)
G. Significantly cut (as instituted on 7 July) [1]

Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC); edited 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*B. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A but this isn't that important to be highlighted in the lede, despite the widespread coverage by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D or B, definitely not A: extreme navel-gazing and minor in the history of the organization; the five subsections currently dedicated to this is unmoored in proportionality. (As an inclusionist, I can see a world where we have a B style article for a wider range of passing events, but that's not our current norm) – SJ + 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B: I still have concerns with D as it would likely dominate the entire article. Likely would be better as its own article with a sentence or two where appropriate elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RfC has been amended, I will add that G already fits with what I have said, "[...] with a sentence or two where appropriate elsewhere." --Super Goku V (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D, supportive of E, strongest possible opposition to A, (alternatively F as part of a depreciation-on-wiki article) mostly per SJ, its long navel-gazing with limited long-term coverage (and almost no significant academic coverage). In the context of this article, the appropriate length would be a few sentences at most, this is excessive. FortunateSons (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and support for the new G FortunateSons (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A and D As currently constituted the section on Wikipedia is far too long, such as to constituted excessive emphasis. A reference to it needs to be shrunken down and kept in the article, with more details merged into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I don't think the controversy is important enough at this point to warrant its own article, as it doesn't seem to have resulted in anything more than a complaint, some commentary and WMF response. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with G as well. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, NPOV requires that it be cut down proportionally. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this reminds me of Talk:Nihad_Awad#White_House_disavows_CAIR_after_Nihad_Awad_Oct_7_Remarks. Awad is the head of the largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy group in the US. That discussion resulted in >50% of the article prose dedicated to a single remark Awad made during the Israel-Hamas war (even though CAIR has been doing a lot of work for 30 years in other areas). The problem is that as time goes on, the volume of articles outputted increases, skewing WP:DUE towards WP:RECENTISM. So based on the current definition of WP:DUE, I would favor A or B, because this topic has had a lot of discussion in the press. Hope we can find a different way to evaluate DUE-ness in the future.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Worth discussing at WT:NPOV, see the latest topic there. – SJ + 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B - this is a major controversy, already discussed from a wide range of perspectives in reliable sources. By definition, it is not navel-gazing, which occurs when Wikipedia covers an issue disproportionately because the issue involves Wikipedia. So long as we follow the rough proportions of the coverage of this controversy in the context of others, in the best sources available, then we are fulfilling our role. Whether that purpose is best carried out within this article, or with a child article and a redirect, is a secondary question and I haven't seen compelling arguments in either direction.
Also, my sense is that editors suggesting that the burst of recent coverage should be expected to evaporate and should therefore be discounted are essentially engaged in WP:CRYSTAL argumentation. We need to base article content on what actually exists, and there are good reasons to expect that future coverage might take the opposite direction from what these editors assume as they discount the recent coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In interest of transparency -- and, if no one objects -- I've added an additional option, "significantly cut," to reflect the large amount of content that was slashed from the live version of this article on 7 July [2]. (This may impact the !vote by inclining some editors to opine "A" given the paucity of content now present.) Chetsford (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like it mixes two different questions in one RFC: how detailed should coverage in this article be, and should extra detail go into another article? – SJ + 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B. 10% is hardly a huge portion. Contrary to some user's claim, the ADL reacts strongly with our RfC to the point of misrepresenting the consensus of our RfC.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameboat (talk • contribs) 04:20, July 9, 2024 (UTC)
    This comment belies the history and importance of the ADL. This conflict w/ WP isn't 10% of the ADL's history. It isn't even 1%. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Steelbeard1 (talk)
  • A Wikipedia is one of the most notable websites on the web, receiving near-constant media coverage. If various reliable sources think that our assessment of ADL's reliability is important, in it goes. D in particular makes no sense because the relevant info is already mentioned there. However, I do not think it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I would support trimming it down a bit, it is way too long as-is. A paragraph or two would suffice. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — For comparison, here's the amount of space in the article for the ADL's work on hate crime legislation.
"ADL was among the lead organizations campaigning for thirteen years, ultimately successfully, for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.[136][137] The hold-up in passing that law focused on the inclusion of the term "sexual orientation" as one of the bases that a crime could be deemed a hate crime.[138] ADL also drafted the model hate crimes legislation in the 1980s; it serves as a model for the legislation that a majority of states have adopted.[139]"
And here's what's in the article on Wikipedia's downgrading of ADL as a source.

Wikipedia determination of unreliability on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
See also: Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
In June 2024, the community of the English Wikipedia reached a consensus that the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,[235][22] including "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic".[236] The community's discussion on the ADL's reliability began in April 2024 and involved over 120 volunteer editors.[237]

Prior to June 2024, the ADL was considered a generally reliable source, though some editors considered it a biased source on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that "should be used with caution, if at all" on the topic.[236]

Discussion and determination
Informal discussion among Wikipedia editors about the reliability of the ADL started on March 25, 2024.[238] On April 6, a formal discussion began about the suitability of the ADL as a source for use on Wikipedia in relation to three subjects: the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, antisemitism, and the organization's Hate Symbols Database. The discussion ultimately involved more than 120 editors.[237][238]

In June 2024, the English Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[235] A Wikipedia administrator who evaluated the community's discussion to determine its result cited the existence of substantial evidence of the ADL acting as a "pro-Israeli advocacy group" that has published unretracted misinformation "to the point that it taints their reputation for accuracy and fact checking regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as well as a "habit on the ADL's part of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism".[236] Later that month, the Wikipedia community concluded the ADL's lack of reliability extended to "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic", but "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned".[236] The community also concluded that the ADL's hate symbol database was "reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols’ history".[236]

Response by the ADL
The ADL condemned the initial decision, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization. The ADL opined that editors opposing the ban "provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter."[235] In a later interview on the subject with MSNBC's Morning Joe, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said the decision was the result of a "small group of people [who] take a political position, and they're not accountable".[239] The decision was also criticized by over 40 Jewish organizations, including Jewish Federations of North America, B'nai B'rith International and HIAS. In a letter coordinated by the ADL and sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the organizations stated "As leading Jewish communal organizations, we express our concern and dismay by Wikipedia's attack on ADL's reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the Jewish community."[240] The letter also called for the foundation to "immediately launch an investigation into this decision" and to reconsider it.[241]

On June 25, 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation issued a preliminary statement in response to the letter, stating that the groups' call for an "investigation" and action by the foundation represented "a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works".[241] The foundation, at the time, said it was still considering a fuller response that would help "raise more understanding with these groups about how Wikipedia works".[241] A press release issued the following day by the foundation stated that "... the Foundation has not, and does not, intervene in decisions made by the community about the classification of a source".[242]

Reaction
Analysis
James Loeffler of Johns Hopkins University, a professor of modern Jewish history, commented that the Wikipedia editors were "heavily influenced by the ADL leadership's comments", which took "a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism".[243] Loeffler also said that the English Wikipedia's decision was a "significant hit" to the credibility of the ADL.[235] Dov Waxman, professor of Israel Studies, said that if "Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ADL's data, it becomes a real issue for Jewish Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antisemitism".[235] The Independent called it a "major blow" to the ADL.[22] CNN called it "a stunning rebuke to one of the world's preeminent authorities on anti-Jewish hate and a significant advocate for the rights and causes of American Jews."[243]

Commentary
Mira Sucharov of Carleton University said the decision was "a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions".[235] Writing in The Forward, senior columnist Rob Eshman opined that the determination by Wikipedia that the ADL was generally unreliable was a "wake-up call" the organization "badly needs" and that it "must do better".[244] In a statement in response to the decision, Jewish Voice for Peace accused the ADL of lying and said "thank you Wikipedia".[245] In an editorial column, Jonathan S. Tobin juxtaposed the Wikipedia community's decision with the ADL's prior advocacy for content moderation on social media, writing that "... the ADL's pro-censorship chickens have come home to roost".[246] Commenting during an episode of The Hill's Rising, Robby Soave said, "I agree with the Wikipedia editors on this — I find the organization to be unreliable some of the time".[245]

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to a serious WP:WEIGHT WP:ASPECT issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC) correcting policy link.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for G. Can live with C or D. It should have no more than a paragraph in this article, and should not be in the lead. It is absurdly self-indulgent to make this article into an article about us. It's a century old organisation that has had a massive amount of coverage in all kinds of sources, and how Wikipedia rates it in 2024 should not take up much space in telling its story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D and G, and I'm shocked to see people wanting to spin this into its own article. Do you think people will be talking about this for years? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D and G. i would support cutting the content in this article more; as BobfromBrockley said, it seems "self-indulgent" Rainsage (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but A The section is ludicrously long and blatant WP:RECENTISM for a long-standing and important organisation. I would also support removing mention from the lead as self-indulgent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (B is second choice, nothing else is good). It clearly is a pretty big deal for the organization, since it was widely covered in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B It's way too long and I would just as soon it was gone altogether but since it is notable, lets make a proper article out of it, even at the risk of it becoming a coatrack for every half baked opinion in the world. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't WP:CENSORED, and WP:NOTPAPER says "There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The content here doesn't violate anything in WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. Hence, there really is no reason to remove it entirely from wikipedia. We can simply move it to a different (possibly its own) article. It amply meets WP:GNG guidelines. And since both ADL and wikipedia are likely to remain relevant for years to come, this topic definitely has long-term significance.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "ADL Being Silenced on Wikipedia is Wrong", ADL
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on the pro-Israel stance in lead section

[edit]
The determination of consensus is not a matter of headcounting. As per our policy as explained in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, consensus occurs "through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" [emphasis addded]. Our well-regarded essay WP:VOTE offers a reminder that "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Further, per WP:DISCARD, the job of the closer is to "know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant" [emphasis added] in the discussion. Only if arguments presented by all sides are equally valid, does the closer end the discussion "by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The "B" !voters cited our guideline MOS:OPEN for their position (both explicitly and implicitly), which was indirectly rebutted by a WP:WEIGHT argument, though the WEIGHT argument fails as it addressed the whole of the article and did not directly rebut the notion that the lead should reflect the article. So, while the WEIGHT argument fails, it also preserves dispute of including this content in its current form in the article at all, though that would need to be addressed separately.

The "1" !voters cited our guideline MOS:BODY for their position and, while a few participants !voted 2, or disputed the binary nature of the two choices altogether, most editors did not weigh-in on this aspect of the RfC, thereby indicating they neither endorsed nor opposed it.

The consensus is for B-1. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

  1. Final paragraph only. (current)
  2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
  3. No mention.
  4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

  1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
  2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • A and 2 While I commend Llll5032 for her work on the lead, what we have here is a paragraph not on the ADL's pro-Israel stance but on the criticism of that stance, comprising five lines of a 19-line lead section, more than one-quarter of the lead. On its face this is a violation of WP:LEAD, for this is a long article on the many facets of a 111-year-old organization, as well as WP:UNDUE, also on its face. Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
I have never commented before in a hatted discussion, but because I was mentioned: Makeandtoss, no, Coretheapple and I do not know each other personally, nor did we have any such communications. Also, Coretheapple is not the first editor to misread the letters in my username. Llll5032 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option WP is not a democracy. Consensus is achieved by following WP's guidelines, namely MOS:OPEN which states that the opening paragraph must establish notability, and the ADL is clearly notable for its pro-Israel advocacy; as well as MOS:LEDE which states that the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies of which the pro-Israel one certainly is one per RS. Furthermore, the current version's first part of the fourth lede paragraph is sourced to Britannica, a lousy tertiary source that has no consensus over its reliability per WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed in the RFCbefore and duly ignored by RFC opener The sentence "ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy" and its references belong in the first para of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignored? It is an option, and, unless changed as I write this, the current version does not have it mentioned in the first paragraph. There was no previous RfC. There was a discussion, above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCbefore is a thing, editors unaware of what it is should not open RFCs. It is an option No, it is not. the current version does not have it mentioned in the first paragraph Because I moved it to the fourth para pending this RFC and following your complaint that there was no consensus, that is in fact the reason for the RFC. Kindly cease with specious misrepresentations of the situation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Option B Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want an immense first paragraph mention of the ADL pro-Israel stuff, or whatever, there is Option D. You know I've never seen such unbridled hostility in the early stages of an RfC, and I have opened a fair share. This is typical of I/P in general and it's on full display here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is typical of an editor in some confusion about what is happening here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1 At this very moment, the main item on ADL's web site, titled "Targeting Hillel, Antisemites and Anti-Israel Activists Push to Undermine Jewish Life on Campus", freely mixes the terms "antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist". It is important that the lead makes clear that this is ADL's current stance and that antisemitism now takes a back seat in their campaigning, while defence of Israel's actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians is in the driving seat. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article states that a Jewish social group was attacked as if it were a pro-Israel or Zionist group. Do you see ADL conflating the two, or was it the protesters? Please indicate the text or narratives within the ADL article hat lead you to characterize ADL as "freely mixing" the anti-zionist with anti-semitic? I have no idea whether such events occurred, but I do not see the false equivalence you assert. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @SPECIFICO, first of all I wrote that ADL freely mixes three terms ("antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist"), not two. Secondly (responding to your prompt), I'm very aware that some of the protesters freely mix the three terms "Jew", "Israel" and "Zionist". That makes me sad but there's not much I can do about it. You requested examples supporting my statement. The following examples are taken from ADL's web site:
    • Para 1 of the ADL article includes the words Hillel International [...] has been one of the most frequent targets of anti-Israel activists and other antisemites in recent months [...]. No evidence is offered for the claims that (1) the activists are "anti-Israel" (as opposed to being critical of Israel's actions in Gaza) and (2) that all of them are antisemites. The use of the words "and other antisemites" demonstrates that ADL considers critics of Israel to be antisemites.
    • Para 5 of the ADL article includes the words College campuses, in particular, have been a hotbed of antisemitic rhetoric and activity. Following the link in that text, we are taken to an article titled "Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023". Para 4 of that article says:

      The dramatic increase in incidents took place primarily in the period following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. Between October 7 and the end of 2023, ADL tabulated 5,204 incidents -- more than the incident total for the whole of 2022. Fifty-two percent of the incidents after October 7 (2,718) included references to Israel, Zionism or Palestine.

      No evidence is offered justifying the inclusion of the 52% in the count of antisemitic incidents.
    Misha Wolf (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ADL is not RS for fact on Wikipedia, so the 52% bit is irrelevant. I asked you to address the simple example ADL gave to support its opinion that anti-zionist views have led to anti-semitic derogation of Jewish individuals who had not expressed zioninst or pro-Israeli-government views. The ADL article refers to widespread, credible reports of anti-zionist taunts directed at kids on a Jewish social club. The question is whether that is a reasonable basis to call such derogation anti-Semitic? Such disparagement of Jewish students not expressing pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist views would seem to contradict your assertion that ADL fabricated an equivalence between anti-Israel/anti-zionist views and anti-Semitic taunts. If you'd care to respond with evidence to the contrary, such evidence would support your !vote. Otherwise it's just not something we can use to support article content.. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have some comments to make, then there is a discussion section for that. No need to badger a !voter. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as this is an organization that has roughly half of its posts on social media and its website concerning Israeli issues—some with an exceedingly tenuous or nonexistent link to any antisemitism. ByVarying | talk 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B the sourcing indicates that pro-Israel activism has become a defining feature and consistent priority of the organization. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B is in good proportion to the facts. Zerotalk 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - it isn't the most important part of this topic obviously, but it is also something that is widely covered, to the point of becoming a defining feature, so it should be included in the lead. And 2, as has generated controversy is so wishy-washy that it shouldnt even really be considered. nableezy - 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (no choice between 1 or 2) — This article is trending towards giving inappropriate weight to some subjects. I noticed this in the case of the weight given to Wikipedia's downgrading of the ADL as a reliable source on Israel/Palestine subjects (see my message of 13:15, 11 July 2024), and here trying to give too much weight in the beginning of the lead to ADL's support for Israel. I looked at reliable sources about the ADL as a whole and they did not give this kind of weight in the beginning of their articles to ADL's support of Israel. See my message of 23:29, 25 July 2024. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a H:DIFF instead of referring to dates and expecting people to go looking for these comments in unspecified places? ByVarying | talk 02:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added links to the places where they appear on the page. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - The proper way to put this is in the lede, as according to the ADL itself, it tackles "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" campaigns. This does not necessary mean "pro-Israel advocacy" the way its being made out to be. And this should just be one or two sentences at most as the final paragraph. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh, the ADL is not a reliable source on the matter, we already decided that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D per Winter queen. I had the same problem with the framing, in that the ADL fights antisemitism and its content and advocacy concerning Israel is in that context. I agree also that it should be in the final paragrph only and brief. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1. This is a sufficiently major aspect of the topic based on coverage that it deserves similarly prominent and in-depth coverage in the lead. Note that "first paragraph" does not mean "first sentence"; it would still follow after the initial description of what the ADL is, which answers some of the objections above. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1: This is a highly notable aspect of the organisation and is this merited for mention in the first paragraph, per MOS:OPEN. As for how this is rendered later on the lead, it should reflect the body, per MOS:BODY, and take as much space is necessary to convey the summary. There is no particular merit in artificially limiting this to one or two sentences. The precise content of the (in this case) fourth paragraph is a matter for normal content discussions, as it has been up until now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B and 1(Summoned by bot) This is a sufficiently major aspect of the topic based on coverage that it deserves similarly prominent and in-depth coverage in the lead. per Aquillion

Discussion

[edit]

Comment Opener seeks to sway the discussion via a presentation of options that does not reflect the RFC before. This should be taken into account.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See response above. I'm going off-wiki imminently, but for the sake of future participants in this RfC I'd request that you please tone down the animus. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Responding to a contribution by @SPECIFICO at 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC) -- see above) Hey, @SPECIFICO, cool your jets. I have no idea what brought this on. I wrote that that article on ADL's web site freely mixes the terms "antisemitic", "anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist". You requested evidence and I provided it. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brought on? I don't know much about ADL. Just read your reasoning and so I read the ADL source you referened and did not find that it conflated what you described. So I asked for specific documentation of the basis for your interpretation -- and found it lacking in your reply. No jets, etc. Whoever closes the poll will judge for themselves whether I missed something or whether your view is source-based. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any organization whose published statements treat "anti-Israel" activists as a subset of antisemitism seems to me to be performing exactly the "conflation" described. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion and POV. as SPECIFICO says, their needs to be a "specific documentation of the basis for your interpretation." Period. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to Revision as of 20:56, 4 August 2024. The now previous paragraph was incredibly POV as well as quite inaccurate ("conflate" means combining in error, not mere "criticism"). Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"conflate" means combining in error Since when? Deliberate conflation is a thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page on conflation defines it clearly. Winter queen lizzie (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a source and it doesn't say that is in error either. And now in breach of 1R as well. See ur talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Winter queen lizzie, I've amended that para so that it is easier for readers to locate ADL's responses to concerns raised by their staff. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Conflate" can mean "confuses" (i.e. combining in error) and there is no need to use it in the context here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Guardian article states:

Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role.

and

A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate.

Misha Wolf (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable secondary sources say the ADL is wrongly "conflating," if they're saying that the ADL is in effect inept and doesn't what it's doing, we should say so with appropriate attribution and appropriate phrasing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the conflation is wrong and the idea that the conflation represents ineptitude are completely distinct. Conflation is often, perhaps usually, part of a chosen rhetorical strategy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have directly above a quote from an anonymous ADL staffer, used to justify that language, who is saying precisely that the ADL is bungling its mission. Look, maybe it is. It's not our job to say that it is or it isn't. Editor opinions for or against the ADL are irrelevant. Editors who have animosity toward the ADL should not be editing this article. It's our job to transmit what the sources say in a neutral manner and not adopt what, in this case, anonymous critics say. We don't make word choices on that basis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple sources for "conflation", and in response some editors assert, essentially, that the ADL is distinguishing things that are distinct and equating things that are essentially the same. Well, I don't think most recent RS on the ADL support that interpretation, so I don't think the article can adopt that perspective (essentially, that there isn't conflation) without better sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If editors want Wikipedia to accuse an article subject (in this case the largest and oldest organization fighting antisemitism) of incompetence, in this case not fighting antisemitism but rather pursuing an agenda on behalf of a foreign country, the burden is on them to make that claim. At the current time we are making that accusation, and doing so without even saying "critics say." So in addition to top-loading the article with criticism, we're adopting it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that the preponderance of reliable secondary sources are making that accusation. We have more neutral words we can use to address the issue. If the Guardian says they're conflating, we can attribute that to the Guardian but not adopt their POV and use that terminology in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find other RS writing about this. See, for example, Examining the ADL’s Antisemitism Audit:

Our analysis clarifies what the ADL’s prominent report captures and excludes, and shows how the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism skews the data—ultimately serving as a reminder of the need for serious statistical analysis done by an organization not beholden to Israel advocacy.

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's criticism. It belongs in the article I guess, in an appropriate and properly attributed fashion. That's why I indicated that the article's Israel aspects are written from a critical, harsh POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source per WP and does not require attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the proportion of WP:BESTSOURCES that say so. If most RS (including some other Guardian articles [3]) do not use the word conflation in their own voice when describing the ADL's stance, then attribution is the more neutral course. WP:VOICE (part of NPOV) has guidance. Llll5032 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word conflation is an ordinary word with an ordinary meaning, it's not something special (you tried this nonsensical form of reasoning with weaponization as well, iirc). Conflating AZ=AS is what ADL does and part of the reason why the result at RSN.
Here's Slate "But the ADL, under the leadership of Greenblatt, is insisting on conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and it has made this conflation central to the ADL’s work. This has not only muddied the waters of its own antisemitism research, it has also undermined the safety, security, and pluralism of American Jews" Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions at RSN have favored attribution for descriptions in Slate magazine articles, aside from basic facts; see the RSN discussion here. Llll5032 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anything controversial, I would attribute it, but it's not controversial, it's obvious and there are other RS saying exactly the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

[edit]

The article is not neutral and I have so tagged for all the reasons described above---excessive emphasis, writing from a critical and not a neutral POV on the Israel matter, and POV word choice (e.g. "conflate"). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureofnine, may I remind you of the recent decisions by the English Wikipedia community regarding ADL (my emphasis):

There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the hate symbol database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history. In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases.

The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.

There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Misha Wolf (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The comments of a closer in an RSN discussion are not "marching orders" which thereby set "Wikipedia policy" concerning a particular article subject, in this case the ADL, so that we have a green light to accuse them of incompetence and basically going rogue in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the accusation of incompetence? ADL does what it does very competently (and intentionally). Misha Wolf (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, either incompetently not fighting antisemitism or intentionally not fighting antisemitism. I don't know which is worse, but at the current time we're saying it as a proven fact and not as criticism, and of course, since it is a proven fact, we are not saying that the ADL feels differently. It's true. Wikipedia editors say so, and they can prove it. Really now,. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "we" are saying that the ADL is not fighting antisemitism, whether intentionally or not. I think the mainstream view in the sources currently reflected in this article, is that the ADL is "fighting" things that are not necessarily antisemitism. Rather than providing am explanation of why these actions and statements they are opposed to amount to antisemitism in the older sense (reflected in the earlier history of the organization) the ADL has redefined "antisemitism" so that these things they have decided to oppose are antisemitic by definition.
This is what the sources cited in this article say on this topic, essentially so this is what the article says. You can as an individual editor have your own opinion about this characterization, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in how you express what you're arguing against. And good, independent, secondary sources opposing this characterization would be required for it to need attribution in article space since the sourcing for it is good. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we're talking about words now. We're using the word "conflate." As in erroneously confusing. They're not involved in what the article describes as "Israel advocacy" as a sideline. It's a conflation. An error. They're off the rails. They're bungling their mission, their nonprofit purpose, ignoring it. We are saying precisely that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating that it's an error on ADL's part? It's not an error; it's intentional. Whether it is wise is an entirely separate question. They do not consider that they are bungling their mission. They are proud of what they are doing. I'm speaking here of the upper echelons of the organisation.
Anyway, I've inserted "according to critics" immediately before "conflates anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism". Misha Wolf (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about the issues you're saying are mentioned above? I see argument about whether the section on Wikipedia's classification of ADL as a source is too much (and there is an ongoing RFC about that), and the stuff about Israel in the lede. Is that everything?
I am confused about your stance on the Israel lede issue, though. In an exchange with Newimpartial you strongly implied there aren't sufficient RS to say that in Wikipedia's voice that the ADL conflates anti-Israel rhetoric with antisemitism. (Isn't it true that they argue for more overlap between these things than many other people do, and that the press takes note of that?) But then Newimpartial claimed we do have RS for it, and in your response starting with If editors, etc. I wasn't sure if you were simply denying that or giving a different argument against "conflate." ByVarying | talk 05:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any WP-based arguments for this tag. Simple, the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies, of which the Israel one certainly is, and this is per MOS:LEDE. "Conflate" is sourced to the Guardian which a RS per WP and does not require attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for the tag are just handwaving and the arguments re conflate/ion are just nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League&oldid=1254087789"