Talk:American Jewish Committee

AJC vs. Antisemitism
How come this is categorized under antisemitism? 68.150.86.20 23:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it fights/opposes antisemitism. The encyclopedic categorization merely indicates a "topic." It is like the case of a war: you mention both sides, not only whom you think are the "good guys." Yours truly,--Ludvikus 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AJCongress and AJCommittee
The reference to AJCongress appears at the head of the AJCommittee article. My edit was an attempt to make the two articles paralel in this regard. I'll refrain from further editing until we reach a consensus on how to make these two entries parallel. 207.197.214.38 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign in before I started the above thread. David in DC 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The AJCongress link at the top is sufficient differentiation, there's no need to write a mini description of AJCongress in the article; generally this would be linked just to a disambiguation link at the top. AJC doesn't refer to itself as AJCommittee; this misunderstanding has led to further confusion between the organizations, since AJCongress does refer to itself as such. AJC's press releases never refer to itself as AJCommittee. User:Fortran3 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WK isn't primarily guided by an organization's own press releases. In the real world, both organizations ARE refered to by the AJCommittee and AJCongress monickers. If links at the top are sufficient, great. If additional reference in the head paragraphs is appropriate, great. But the treatment should be exactly the same on both pages. David in DC 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What has the AJC done?
Most of this entry is laundry lists of ex-presidents and departments, which seem to be copied from the AJC's web site. Can somebody write something about what the AJC has done since 1907? They were a liberal organization for most of their 100 years. What did they do? Weren't they involved in the civil rights movement in the south?
 * I added some history. Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources?
Afridman, could you provide sources for those additions? It seems awfully self-promotional on the part of AJC. There were other people who were responsible for those things too. Nbauman 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the claim that a 1987 rally influenced the subsequent outpouring of Jews from the USSR is overbroad.  I was working for a sponsoring agency at the time. I helped greet the college buses that day as they arrived at a pre-rally at GWU.  It was swell.  And the rally was a major event.


 * But to credit it with playing a significant role in the USSR's change in policy, without a source for the assertion, confuses coincidence with causality. I'm editing it out.  David in DC 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV section on “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,”
The section is nothing but an attack on the book and contains no balance, just more anti-Zionist rhetoric.Scott Adler 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't delete the entire "Criticism" section just because you disagree with it.

==This section was the work of many people, who reached a consensus on it. You can add sourced material to it, but not delete it. Your deletion violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Nbauman 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Interfaith
There ought to be information on the AJC's interfaith activities, which are considerable. ADM (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Unification Church antisemitism controversy by merged into this article. (I have already added some of it to the "controversy" section here.) That article is more than half about a press conference given by the AJC in 1976 and the reactions to that. Since the AJC is the subject of the article and it is only about one incident, it might as well be put here. WP does not usually have an article on a single incident like a press conference. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the AJC is just one of three accusations, and not even the most widely reported (another one has been reported in a total of ten sources, including salon magazine and the UK parliament). Unification Church would be the more appropriate merge-target. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However more than half the article is about the AJC's 1976 press conference. Another possibility is to expand the article with information about the church's pro-Jewish and pro-Israel positions, however this has been rejected becuase the title of the article includes the word "antisemitism." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And 100% of the article is about the UC -- making it the clearly preferable merge-target. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there would be no problem to "merge" to both places. And to Divine Principle as well.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is actually, it would most probably be WP:UNDUE here -- the UC press conference is barely a blip on the AJC's 93 year history, which includes some major diplomatic victories. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are doing many good things.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The AJC doesn't seem to think it's very important since they don't mention it on their website. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:It should be merged to Unification Church article which now only redirects to that article. And it should mention that it was Rev Moon's words that started the controversy, not something from the "church." What's in there now is a bit long, but ok. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually part of the basic teachings of the church: That the suffering of the Jews, faithful Christains, and God over the last 2,000 years (including the Holocaust) are the result of the failure of Jesus' primary mission. (Divine Principle 1996 edition page 116) No one had ever said that was antisemitic until the AJC news conference in 1976. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Steve has now opened an AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination). Participants on this merger proposal may wish to comment there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on American Jewish Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120528173423/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1170359796236&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1170359796236&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What makes Jews foreign
A statement in 1900-1929 flagged in 2015 as "very POV" (and also tagged as citation needed back then) needs to be justified not only for being in the article but for being placed after mention of Judge Proskauer. The JTA obit about him doesn't make it a good idea for this "very POV" to be there... possibly not even in this article at all. BTW, it is part of text that was previously trimmed. Pi314m (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

AJC's history of antisemitism and racism
AJC opposed the admittance of Holocaust refugees, celebrated the execution of the Rosenbergs, and opposed Nelson Mandela's visit to New York City, among other antisemitic and racist actions. No mention is made of the AJC's anti-Black racism or their celebration of the execution of the Rosenbergs. The section on their response to the Holocaust mentions a "lack of reaction and silence" by AJC, but that is false: According to Yad Vashem, the AJC "objected to any changes in immigration legislation and strongly opposed mass demonstrations". That isn't silence (but it certainly is silencing!) and it isn't a lack of reaction. The description of AJC as having "a history of fighting against all forms of discrimination in the United States and working on behalf of social equality" is bogus. They haven't even fought for the civil rights of all Jewish people, let alone Black people. This is far too flattering a description. The Yad Vashem link also mentions that AJC was an "elitist organization, comprised principally of well-to-do German Jews." The article should mention the principle ethnic and socioeconomic background of the organization's membership. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At least regarding the Mandela issue, the sourcing seems insufficient. The AJC receives very little mention in this sourcing. However, details of these events and Mandela's broader relationship with the Jews might be worth adding to Nelson Mandela and perhaps to some more general page regarding the American Jewish community.
 * Unrelated, but it looks like there is a copyright violation in the Rosenberg and holocaust response text. The added sentences are almost directly copied from the source, or are at best close paraphrasing.
 * In general, better coverage of these issues seems reasonable as long as the sourcing is there. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a blowtorch to the copyvio sections. I'm open to those being added back, but please do not paraphrase so closely. Also consider reading the context more broadly. It seemed like the source changed the implications of the added text even in the adjoining paragraphs for some of this. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)