Revision as of 02:45, 13 December 2024 edit2601:645:8500:7b70:e92b:8355:dda9:1a00 (talk) →Inaccuracy in 1st paragraph of lead section. Add “to a lesser extent”: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:30, 26 December 2024 edit undoSean.hoyland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers34,525 edits Undid revision 1265307658 by 49.183.93.160 (talk)Tag: Undo | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|minthreadsleft = 3 | |minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 12 | ||
|algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
==RfC on the pro-Israel stance in lead section== | |||
{{archive top|The determination of consensus is not a matter of headcounting. As per our policy as explained in ], consensus occurs ''"through discussion, '''using reasons based in policy''', sources, and common sense"'' . Our well-regarded essay ] offers a reminder that ''"it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important"''. Further, per ], the job of the closer is to ''"know policy sufficiently to know '''what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant"''''' 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''".<Br/> | |||
The "B" !voters cited our guideline ] for their position (both explicitly and implicitly), which was indirectly rebutted by a ] 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 ] 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'''. ] (]) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
<!-- ] 12:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1725883271}} | |||
How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead? | |||
Location: | |||
{{ordered list |list_style_type=upper-alpha |Final paragraph only. (current) | |||
|Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph. | |||
|No mention. | |||
|Other. }} | |||
If '''A''' or '''B''', what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph: | |||
# Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism () | |||
# One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance | |||
] (]) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Survey=== | |||
*'''A''' and '''2''' While I commend {{U|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 ], for this is a long article on the many facets of a 111-year-old organization, as well as ], also on its face. ] (]) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{ctop}} | |||
*:I am very curious to learn why you called Llll5032 "her," as they do not appear to have their gender specified anywhere. Do you know "her" on a personal level? If so, was there any communication regarding the discussions here? ] (]) 12:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I read their user name as "Lill". (I thought the second letter was an I (a capital I as in Irish) not an l, a small L as in lima) Thanks for your vigilance, ] (]) 12:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)<small> adding to be ultra-ultra-ultra clear ] (]) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
*:::Clearly, that’s four L’s not “Lill,” which is not a female name, or even a name anyway, so please clarify to everyone your identification of their gender? Transparency is important here. ] (]) 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::Note that Coretheapple edited their response after it was replied to. ] (]) 14:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Yes I added in small font that I had done so. It probably wasn't necessary but I was ]. ] (]) 14:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::And why did you not read it Liii? ] (]) 15:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::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. ] (]) 02:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{cbottom}} | |||
*'''Option WP is not a democracy'''. Consensus is achieved by following WP's guidelines, namely ] which states that the opening paragraph must establish notability, and the ADL is clearly notable for its pro-Israel advocacy; as well as ] 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. ] (]) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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. ] (]) 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: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. ] (]) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::RFCbefore is a thing, editors unaware of what it is should not open RFCs. {{tq| It is an option}} No, it is not. {{tq| 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. ] (]) 14:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::See Option '''B''' ] (]) 14:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::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. ] (]) 15:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::That comment is typical of an editor in some confusion about what is happening here. ] (]) 15:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''B''' <s>and '''1'''</s> At this very moment, the main item on ADL's web site, titled "", 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. ] (]) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*: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.]] 11:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Hi @], 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 {{tq|q=1|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 {{tq|q=1|College campuses, in particular, have been a }}. Following the link in that text, we are taken to an article titled "Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023". Para 4 of ''that'' article says: {{talkquote|q=1|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. | |||
*::] (]) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::ADL is not RS for fact on Misplaced Pages, 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 ].]] 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::If you have some comments to make, then there is a discussion section for that. No need to badger a !voter. ] (]) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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. ] | ] 06:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''B''' the sourcing indicates that pro-Israel activism has become a defining feature and consistent priority of the organization. (] · ]) ''']''' 07:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''B''' is in good proportion to the facts. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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 {{tq|has generated controversy}} is so wishy-washy that it shouldnt even really be considered. ''']''' - 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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 Misplaced Pages's downgrading of the ADL as a reliable source on Israel/Palestine subjects (see 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 of 23:29, 25 July 2024. ] (]) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Can you please provide a ] instead of referring to dates and expecting people to go looking for these comments in unspecified places? ] | ] 02:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I added links to the places where they appear on the page. ] (]) 04:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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. ] (]) 17:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Uh huh, the ADL is not a reliable source on the matter, we already decided that. ] (]) 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''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. --] (]) 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''B''' and '''1''': This is a highly notable aspect of the organisation and is this merited for mention in the first paragraph, per ]. As for how this is rendered later on the lead, it should reflect the body, per ], 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. ] (]) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''B''' and '''1'''{{sbb}} {{TQ|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=== | |||
'''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.] (]) 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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. ] (]) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::] ] (]) 14:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Comment''' (Responding to a contribution by @] at 17:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC) -- see above) | |||
Hey, @], 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. ] (]) 17:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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.]] 22:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Any organization whose published statements treat "anti-Israel" activists as a subset of antisemitism seems to me to be performing exactly the "conflation" described. ] (]) 20:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::That's your opinion and POV. as SPECIFICO says, their needs to be a "specific documentation of the basis for your interpretation." Period. ] (]) 17:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::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"). ] (]) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tq|"conflate" means combining in error}} Since when? Deliberate conflation is a thing. ] (]) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The wikipedia page on ] defines it clearly. ] (]) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::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. ] (]) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::@], I've amended that para so that it is easier for readers to locate ADL's responses to concerns raised by their staff. ] (]) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::"Conflate" can mean "confuses" (i.e. combining in error) and there is no need to use it in the context here. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The cited Guardian article states:{{tq2|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 {{tq2|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.}} ] (]) 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::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. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::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. ] (]) 22:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::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. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::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. ] (]) 23:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::If editors want Misplaced Pages 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. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::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 Misplaced Pages's voice. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It's easy to find other RS writing about this. See, for example, :{{tq2|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.}} ] (]) 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::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. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::The Guardian is a reliable source per WP and does not require attribution. ] (]) 09:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::It depends on the proportion of ] that say so. If most RS (including some other Guardian articles ) do not use the word conflation in their own voice when describing the ADL's stance, then attribution is the more neutral course. ] (part of NPOV) has guidance. ] (]) 14:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::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. | |||
::::::::::: "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" ] (]) 15:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Discussions at RSN have favored attribution for descriptions in Slate magazine articles, aside from basic facts; ]. ] (]) 15:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::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. ] (]) 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== Rape and murder conviction of Leo Frank == | |||
I believe it would be wise to add that Leo Frank was convicted of rape as well as murder of a 13 year old girl ] (]) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Misleading statement about ADL history == | == Misleading statement about ADL history == |
Latest revision as of 09:30, 26 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Defamation League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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.
|
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.
|
Misleading statement about ADL history
The lead section says that the ADL:
”…has received criticism, including from members of its staff, that such advocacy has diverted ADL from its historical fight against antisemitism.”
The links show recent ADL member statements (years 2023/2024), but the (scholarly) “criticisms” that *do not* “includ” ADL “members” date back over *half a century*, which is long enough to consider that the ADL has *historically* used accusations of anti-semitism to stifle criticism of Israel & related US policy.
E.g. Perplexity AI writes that:
In the 1983 book *The Fateful Triangle*, Noam Chomsky critiques the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for its role in suppressing dissent regarding U.S. and Israeli policies. He argues that the ADL employs tactics reminiscent of Stalinist methods to silence critics, labeling them as anti-Semitic to undermine their credibility. Chomsky emphasizes that this defamation campaign stifles honest discussion about Israel's actions and U.S. complicity, suggesting that it serves to protect a narrative that avoids confronting uncomfortable truths about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Citations: https://chomsky.info/dissent01/ https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Fateful_Triangle https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228608534170 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1984/08/16/chomskys-fateful-triangle-an-exchange/ https://en.wikipedia.org/Linguistics_of_Noam_Chomsky https://chomsky.info/fateful01/ https://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/7/a_hideous_atrocity_noam_chomsky_on https://www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/president 2601:645:8500:7B70:20B7:C7A0:DD97:2D92 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
In other words, I would like to suggest two edits:
1) To the phrase “ADL is also known for its pro-Israel advocacy” add “and weaponization of anti-semitism.
2) Change
A)
”It has received criticism, including from members of its staff…”
to
B)
”It has received criticism since 1983, including from members of its staff…” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8500:7B70:CC82:8A93:EFDC:2FCF (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
ADL regards Amnesty International’s genocide conclusion as antisemitic
In order to include this important fact (which you can confirm on the ADL’s X account), I suggest changing:
“ADL has advanced the concept of new antisemitism, including a definition that says anti-Zionism and some criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.”
To something like:
”ADL has advanced the concept of new antisemitism; defining anti-Zionism and some criticisms of Israel as antisemitic—including Amnesty International’s conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” 2601:645:8500:7B70:8164:C33A:439:3D16 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. We need sources. But a google search makes me suspect this occurrence isn't notable enough (or covered in enough RS) to merit that kind of prominence in the lede of the article. ByVarying | talk 23:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Inaccuracy in 1st paragraph of lead section. Add “to a lesser extent”
I asked Perplexity Pro:
Is the phrase “was founded to combat antisemitism, as well as other forms of bigotry and discrimination” more or less appropriate than “was founded to combat antisemitism, as well as to a lesser extent other forms of bigotry and discrimination.”
This was the answer:
Based on the search results and the historical context of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the phrase "was founded to combat antisemitism, as well as to a lesser extent other forms of bigotry and discrimination" is more appropriate and accurate than the version without "to a lesser extent."
This assessment is supported by several key points:
1. **Original mission**: The ADL was founded in 1913 specifically to combat antisemitism. Its initial focus was clearly on addressing issues affecting Jewish people.
2. **Dual mission statement**: The ADL's mission statement, "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all," places primary emphasis on combating antisemitism.
3. **Historical development**: While the ADL has expanded its scope over time, its core focus has remained on antisemitism. Other forms of bigotry and discrimination were addressed as secondary concerns that aligned with its primary mission.
4. **Resource allocation**: A significant portion of ADL's resources and efforts are still directed towards tracking and combating antisemitism, such as the annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents.
5. **Evolving focus**: The organization has gradually expanded its work to include other forms of discrimination, but this expansion occurred over time and was not the initial focus.
Including the phrase "to a lesser extent" more accurately reflects the ADL's historical priorities and development. It acknowledges the organization's primary focus on combating antisemitism while also recognizing its efforts in addressing other forms of bigotry and discrimination.
This phrasing provides a more precise representation of the ADL's mission and activities, aligning with its historical context and current operations.
Citations: https://amistad-finding-aids.tulane.edu/agents/corporate_entities/411 https://ajhs.org/our-collections/the-adl-archives-project/ https://www.adl.org/about/who-we-are https://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-Defamation_League https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anti-Defamation-League https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/history https://michigan.adl.org/about/ https://www.adl.org/about/mission-and-history https://newengland.adl.org/about-adl-new-england/ https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-mission 2601:645:8500:7B70:E92B:8355:DDA9:1A00 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Low-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Mid-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions