Talk:Anti-Defamation League

"Jewish organization" not supported by sources
spintheer (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):
 * Why it should be changed: I was not able to find any RS inside or outside the article which currently refers to the ADL as a "jewish organization". ADL has roots in a jewish organization, but it has since split and become independent, as described in the article lede. For what it's worth, the ADL doesn't refer to itself as a Jewish organization anywhere, so it seems bizarre to refer to it this way in the article.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source designating the ADL as a jewish organisation. -- 41.66.98.68 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section on the Wikipedia decision on the (un)reliability of the ADL, multiple sources are cited which describe the ADL as a Jewish organization. See
 * "Greenblatt commented that Wikipedia was "flat out wrong ... we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is".[245] An alliance of 43 American Jewish organizations collectively argued that Wikipedia was "stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself from" antisemitism.[245][246]" KHarbaugh (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: The pressure from the ADL to cancel a Bard College class was unsuccessful
In the section on College classes and student organizations, it would be worthwhile to state whether the pressure from the ADL caused Bard College to cancel the class. Based on the cited article, it sounds like the class was held as planned. The article says an Israeli diplomat "tried to persuade" Bard, and "The course was designed and taught by Nathan Thrall" (with the past-tense "taught" indicating the the class was not canceled).

The-erinaceous-one (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chetsford (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2024
[For 2020s history section:]

In June 2024, the progressive magazine Jewish Currents published a study analyzing the ADL's antisemitic incidents tracker. The study found a number of issues with the tracker, including unclear criteria for incidents, a lack of differentiation by degree, and a lack of political context. The analysts argued that these issues caused the tracker to erroneously count anti-Zionist political demonstrations as antisemitic incidents, and undercount white nationalist incidents and organizing. They concluded: "Since we found that most alleged antisemitic incidents in the Palestine solidarity movement lacked merit, the legitimately antisemitic Palestine-related incidents would appear as mere statistical noise when compared with the stunning growth of organized white nationalism." These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right. Woolstation (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ I'm unclear if the sentence "These findings are consistent with widespread criticism of the organization's conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism and of the left with the right." is a summary of material found in the source or is an editorial addendum. If it's the latter, it's unsuitable for inclusion. (I was not able to locate it in the source cited, but feel free to correct me if I missed it somewhere.) Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead of this article
It's technically compliant with MOS:LEAD, however, I'd suggest the lead section is currently somewhat unwieldly and unreadable and may be a little WP:UNDUE for the amount of word count (as a percent of the total) it assigns to controversy and criticism. The third paragraph, specifically, probably could be rolled into the final paragraph and a lot of the details -- which are more suitable for the body -- trimmed. Additionally, information about 2019 revenue and finances is a snapshot in time better limited to the infobox and body than the lead (moreover, it's not currently in the body at all, as required by MOS:LEADREL). Anyway, just a suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am against the ban on ADL
The ADL may have a point of view, but it is not a propaganda organization and is a critical organization that fights hate not only against Jews but any marginalized community. We can care about Palestinians in Gaza without vilifying Israel. There has been lot of antisemitic reaction to the war in Gaza and now is not the time to undercut an institution critical to fighting hate. The editors dismissal the IHRA definition of antisemitism is bias in its own right. I imagine it’s over the portion stating that being anti-Zionist is a form of antisemitism. That denying Jews the right to self-determination in their historical homeland delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist. (No one questions other countries right to exist and Israel is a democracy, no matter how flawed). In any case, it’s too complicated for me to go into here, but American Jews are in crisis and ADL is a well regarded American institution fighting hate. I have been a donor to Wikipedia and I ask that you reconsider. Cynthia Wolff NYC 162.83.190.106 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Cynthia Wolff NYC, and welcome to Wikipedia. This page is for discussing improvements to the en-WP article about ADL. You may want to take a look at WP:RSN, where discussions are ongoing at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. That particular discussion started in early April, so it's a fairly long read. Part of it is closed, but that closure has been challenged at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation_League
Per sources this deserves a mention, but per WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NAVELGAZING etc, current content is way too much. Make it a sentence or 2. On the topic of ADL, this is a minor blip, at least today. Glad to see it's not in the WP:LEAD atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And the navelgazing grows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors deem ADL "generally unreliable"
Media

Discussions on Wikipedia
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * see one follow-up at Administrators%27_noticeboard

Previous conflict of interest editing issue from 2021
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_172
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_172

< Thanks for sharing this in the Wikipedia

 Bluerasberry  (talk)  14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think merging the other two threads under yours was a very good idea, but whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Undone! 4 threads now.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The media is taking note of the controversy. I think journalitic citations are in order such as. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Query: should this be mentioned in the lead section?
This issue has been mentioned in the lead section, but should it? Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say it qualifies under LEDE:  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Request help for The Signpost
The Signpost is Wikipedia's own community newsletter for Wikipedia news. Anyone can edit Signpost articles in the newsroom before publication. The next issue is due to be published 28 June.

If anyone is interested and available to develop the news story about Wikipedia's ADL evaluation and the resulting news media, then please contribute at Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_the_media. Right now the story is framed as a news summary, but if anyone feels strongly, they can propose an opinion piece for this issue or any future issue. If anyone has comments about the news then please post to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. That newsroom, and not this Wikipedia article talk page, is the place to discuss the Wikipedia community narrative of this story. It is likely that Wikipedia's news story will influence future journalism on this topic.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bluerasberry Did you see this?: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks, that link is now in the news article.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  18:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Two lead notes to be discussed
꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) In an early campaign, ADL and allied groups pressured the automaker Henry Ford, who had published virulently antisemitic propaganda. Pressured him to do what? Or in what direction?
 * 2) The ADL did not recognize the Armenian genocide until 2007, instead calling it a "massacre" and an "atrocity" in years prior. Does this deserve to be one of five activities/positions taken by the ADL described in the lead? It does not seem like a significant enough aspect of the organization as it's treated in reliable secondary sources.


 * Armenian genocide denial is very much a prominent controversy documented in the article. MOS:LEDE states that the lede is a summary of the body including any prominent controversies. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) moved from a new section by ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 15:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand it’s prominent, but I don’t believe that it is in the top five most significant aspects of the organization’s history of advocacy, which its placement in the lead implied. What if mention of Armenian genocide denial was moved to the final lead paragraph where its controversies are discussed? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 15:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's given due weight in the body, so the lede should reflect that, but I don't have any preference to which lede paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is consensus for its inclusion, as the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per MOS:LEDE, and the body has a section dedicated to this controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's prominently covered in secondary sources regarding ADL, then it should be kept. But among Israel-Palestine, Wikipedia, and New antisemitism, the Armenian genocide is seldom mentioned with the ADL. So it's a controversy, but whether or not it's a prominent one is unclear. GuardianH (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be overweighted in the article body ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 19:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request
In the discussion of the ADL's critique of SJP, the article fails to mention that SJP and its parent organizations have been sued for precisely what the ADL asserted (giving material support to HAMAS). https://www.foxnews.com/us/major-us-law-firm-brings-case-against-students-justice-palestine-substantial-assistance-hamas

The firms filing suit are subject to Fed. R. 11 Sanctions for bringing a suit known to be meritless, and as such, the claims have inherent credibility. The article should reference as much to avoid the existing one-sided critique of the ADL's assertions re SJP. Willsue4food (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * These comments about sanctions are original research. Please propose a reliable (non-tabloid) source which specifically mentions this lawsuit as it relates to the ADL. If reliable sources do not explain how this lawsuit relates to the ADL, neither should this article. To put it more broadly, this is an encyclopedia, so our goal isn't just to list events we think are relevant, it is to provide context, and the way we do that is via reliable (mostly independent) sources about the ADL. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While the link goes to a Fox News article (which I acknowledge is a biased source), the article specifically links to the Complaint filed in the case. The original Complaint is posted at: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/05/National-Jewish-Advocacy-Center-the-Schoen-Law-Firm-and-the-Holtzman-Vogel-law-firm-vs-1.pdf.  (And I confirmed the accuracy of the copy of the Complaint by downloading the same from Pacer).
 * In the Wikipedia article, it notes "Two years later, in 2024, the ADL asserted that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) had violated federal law concerning material support for Hamas, a statement that both The Nation and The Intercept observed was made without any evidence." The Complaint makes the same allegation that the ADL made (in significant detail), which the cited Ackerman article accused of being defamatory, and provides specific evidence to support the same.  To that extent, I recommend that the following be appended at the end of the foregoing sentence:  "However, on May 1, 2024, Greenberg Trauig, and other law firms, filed a detailed Complaint, with supporting exhibits, on behalf of several individuals who were harmed by the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023.  Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, echoing the ADL's assertion, the Complaint alleges that the National Students for Justice in Palestine violated, and continues to violate, federal law by providing material support for Hamas.  The action remains pending."
 * The Complaint (and the supporting exhibits) provide context for the allegations made by the ADL. Ackerman's article accuses ADL of defaming SJP, and seeks to refute the allegation that the SJP provides material support for Hamas.  The Complaint provides a counterpoint to the same and avoids the erroneous impression left by the article that the ADL was making the accusation in a vacuum.
 * Further, the Complaint itself references ADL research in at least one area. Willsue4food (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The mere fact a lawsuit occurred is insufficient to include in a WP article unless it is covered by RS. Per WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A lawsuit that was not covered by any RS does not represent a "significant view ... published by reliable sources" merely because we can prove it occurred. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was covered by RS
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/02/lawsuit-students-palestinian-protests-hamas/
 * Washington Post is a RS.
 * https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/hamas-victims-sue-pro-palestinian-groups-amid-us-campus-protests
 * Also covered by Bloomberg, another RS Willsue4food (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS Lawsuits are notoriously common in the US. The fact it is covered by RS does not necessarily mean it meets WP:WEIGHT. Alas, sanctions for bringing meritless suits are extremely rare and the possibility does not provide inherent credibility to lawsuits. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Prior comment disagreed with the proposed edit because of the claim the lawsuit was not covered by RS. My response was that it was covered by RS.
 * The requested edit was to provides a counterpoint to the opinion article accusing the ADL of defaming SJP by making the allegation. The ADL's accusation was not made in a vacuum, and by linking only to the accusation by Ackerman that the claim was without fact, and not noting that others have made the same claims (supported by evidence), provides a slanted view on the issue.  This is especially important as while the Nation is considered a RS, the linked Ackerman piece is an opinion piece.
 * And while Rule 11 sanctions are rare, I would note that the Complaint includes detailed evidence in support of the claims -- an issue which the Ackerman opinion piece asserts is lacking. Willsue4food (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The complaint is just allegations and is not a reliable source. Lawsuits generally throw everything at the wall within reach. As for Ackerman saying the lawsuit is without merit; that is an automatic response. So, we say the lawsuit was filed and the allegations were denied. In the case that something comes of the lawsuit, then we can update the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So just those two? Seems insufficient. Also, wouldn't this be more appropriate at the SJP article, anyway? Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, other news outlets (of varying degree of reliability, and on both sides of the bias spectrum) covered the story as well. I just flagged two RS.  A quick google search disclosed, among others:
 * https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article288250310.html
 * https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-attack-survivors-sue-student-protesters-1896451
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/31/october-7-survivors-are-suing-pro-palestinian-groups-but-what-is-the-aim
 * https://www.carolinajournal.com/federal-lawsuit-alleges-students-for-justice-in-palestine-is-a-hamas-front-group/
 * https://theintercept.com/2024/05/10/october-7-survivors-lawsuit-palestine-hamas-sjp-protests/
 * While it should be in the SJP article, I do continue to maintain that for balance in the ADL article, reference to the suit should be included as the article currently includes an opinion critique (the Ackerman piece) of the allegation. For example, after noting the Ackerman critique, the addition of just:
 * However, on May 1, 2024, Greenberg Trauig, and other law firms, filed suit on behalf of several individuals who were harmed by the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Complaint alleges that the National Students for Justice in Palestine violated, and continues to violate, federal law by providing material support for Hamas. The action remains pending.
 * Citations would be:
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/02/lawsuit-students-palestinian-protests-hamas/
 * and
 * https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/hamas-victims-sue-pro-palestinian-groups-amid-us-campus-protests
 * Willsue4food (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at all these references and I can't find any of them that mention the ADL. This is an article on the ADL. Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, we need reliable, independent sources to explain for us why this this lawsuit is encyclopedically important to the ADL. Sources which do not mention the ADL are useless for this purpose. It is also not enough for the ADL to be mentioned in the lawsuit itself as a WP:PRIMARY document. Instead, we need sources to explain why this matters to the ADL. We cannot fill in this gap with out own understanding of the topic, because that is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No Historians' Consensus of Frank's Innocence
Regarding: "historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent. [25]" there is no such consensus. The evidence in fact overwhelmingly points to Leo Frank's guilt. Instead, this section should read, "In a May 13, 2009 column in the pro-Zionist, ADL-sympathizing Jewish publication 'Forward', Allison Gaudet Yarrow claimed 'historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent' without providing support for her claim. Leo Frank's attorney stating on his deathbed that he believed Frank was innocent, and, 72 years after the fact, Steve Oney, editor of Los Angeles Magazine, stating that he too believed in Frank's innocence, by no means constitutes any consensus of historians. [25]" 68.96.85.98 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ Provide sourcing please and use WP:EDITREQUEST. There is an entire section on his article suggesting (proving) that he was innocent.
 * The phrase "pro-Zionist, ADL-sympathizing Jewish publication 'Forward'" is egregiously WP:UNDUE.
 * Leo Frank was killed by an antisemitic lynching before the state of Israel existed. I'm tempted to remove this as WP:TROLLING. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frank is- in fact- guilty. The charge that it was an "antisemitic lynching" is egregiously WP:UNDUE - absurd. Frank was lynched because he was found guilty of murdering a young girl. No article section is "proving" anything, that's 'wagging the dog;' using an entry to change what is fact of law. The Forward's motivations are absolutely essential to discussion, just as the recent Wiki finding of the ADL's bias, and the subsequent Wiki action are essential to factual entries. The person making the request is bringing fact, from what I see in good faith, to show that that phrase of the entry is biased, and needs to be removed. My concern is with your response, threatening to remove, censor a legitimate concern. Have another editor address the issue. 2600:1008:B193:362E:5188:E7F7:5B7D:45F8 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frank was pardoned posthumously.. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frank continues to be, in fact, guilty of murdering Mary Phagan, a young girl.
 * Yours is another misleading statement in this short discussion.
 * From he very pardon board's order: "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon."
 * Your comment is a 'straw man' that misleads, steers the conversation away from the fact that Leo Frank was, and continues to be, convicted of murdering Mary Phagan.
 * The request to remove the phrase needs to be addressed by an unbiased editor. 2600:1008:B193:362E:5188:E7F7:5B7D:45F8 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Spying
How should ADL's spying on pro-Palestinian activists in the US be covered in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * probably shouldn't? not unless its some huge scandal that takes up a lot of notability and media presence.
 * It belongs in a section, sure, but its probably covered by that last sentence in the lede about how the ADL has done pro-Israel advocacy. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia community
"In June 2024, the Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I explicitly don't want to comment upon this decision because I don't know much neither about this decision nor the ADL. However, this sentence lacks factual accuracy, in my opinion. It was the community of the English-language Wikipedia that did so. Being a long-time and active user of the German-language Wikipedia, I am somewhat irritated that this is presented as a decision of "the Wikipedia community". There are several articles in German-speaking countries repeating this claim that "the Wikipedia community" took this decision and we didn't even know what they were talking about. Please correct this sentence. Mautpreller (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mautpreller I think you're correct, so I made this edit:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mautpreller (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Incoherent para
The 4th para of section "1990s" is incoherent. For example:


 * The sentence "Neither the Aronsons nor ADL ..." mentions a family called Aronson with no explanation of who they are/were. I'm guessing that this is the surname of the person who recorded the private conversations, but that's just a guess.
 * The para appears to say twice that federal wiretap law had changed to make it illegal to record conversations from a cordless phone and that ADL was unaware of this.

Misha Wolf (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made an attempt to fix it, but more work is likely needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to spinoff WP reliability section
Taking note of Gråbergs Gråa Sång's concerns regarding WP:PROPORTION, and noting that reporting on this subject has been continuing on a steady clip for closing on two weeks now, and seems unlikely to abate in the very near future, I suggest trimming the section on unreliability to a few sentences and spinning this off into a standalone article, leaving a main article template link at the ADL entry. I took the liberty of drafting a proposed spinoff in userspace here by simply copying over all current text, as well as some text that previously existed here and was removed due to DUE, and adding in the more recent reporting of the WMF's reaction. Does anyone have any thoughts? (Also, obviously, please edit this draft anyway you see fit.) Chetsford (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chetsford Have you considered letting this issue be a part of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict instead of a separate article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
 * The text:
 * [...] 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"
 * seems to describe two (related) areas of unreliability:
 * the intersection of antisemitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are concerned
 * Though the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict might provide a suitable home for coverage of the former, it seems to me that the latter, especially discussion of the relationship between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other, does not belong there. That discussion is closely related to the article Working definition of antisemitism. Jonathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that "we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is" (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/). As there are other, reputable, Jewish organizations which do not share ADL's equation between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other (see Nexus Task Force and https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-it-antisemitic-to-be-anti-zionist/), there are two possible interpretations of Greenblatt's statement:
 * The number of Jewish organizations supporting that equation is so much larger than the number questioning it that the latter can be disregarded.
 * The Jewish people who question that equation are not really Jewish.
 * It seems to me that this incident is leading to a further inflaming of the debate about the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and a further polarisation in the Jewish community about the relationship between criticism of Israel's actions and of Zionism on the one hand and antisemitism on the other. Those developments do not seem to me to be a good match for article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "onathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that 'we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is' (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/)."
 * The full quote was:
 * "“We should listen to Black people when they tell us what racism is, and listen to LGBTQ groups when they tell us what homophobia is, and we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is,” Greenblatt said."
 * There is an evident methodological flaw in this simile, of course, that confuses constituencies who have suffered from discrimination, with the communities of scholars who analyse these varieties of discrimination. A further assumption is that ‘black people’, LGBTQ affiliates, and Jews are in each case homogeneous, and are all properly represented by one or more representative community organs. A third assumption is that these community bodies form their views by listening to what their respective constituents think. Well they do that, but, as anyone familiar with them knows, they also vie among themselves to convince their communities that their interpretation of their common experiences truly represents their interests. Having just written Black capitalism, I noted that  fundamental rifts, never quite healed, run through its history, between proponents, critics and many who simply don’t care for the two ostensible options.
 * But the point I would make is that the ADL assisted AIPAC in causing Jamaal Bowman to lose his bid for re-election, indifferent to this talk about 'listening to Black people'. he was slammed for expressing sympathy for Palestinians, and that cancelled any sense that they take seriously any listening to Black people. Just as they are notoriously tone-deaf to dissent within Jewish communities.
 * Suffice it to compare, re the former this ADL comment, with Peter Beinart's commentary on what occurred. Things like that suggest that the ADL does have a conflict between its subscribing to universal values for all discriminate groups, and its Israel advocacy which deserves a measured section on this page.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång - I hadn't considered that but it seems like a reasonable idea. Chets|ford (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does seem disproportionate here. +1 to a section in the existing Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. – SJ + 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Chetsford, I understand you've been working on a detail article with extensive detail, which deserves its own discussion. But the level of detail, section proliferation, and inclusion of lower-notability op-eds was growing out of keeping with the rest of the article here. I pared it back to something more historically proportionate. (still erring on the side of 'too much space' for this incident, imo, both due to its recency and because we should be more cautious about citing our own processes -- but readers may share some of the recency bias of editors).

Please reach some sort of consensus about a spinoff before flooding this table of contents with such detail. Even then I don't think it improves the article to include partisan commentary from pro- and anti-ADL organizations about developments like this. – SJ + 01:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Sj - I can't really comment on your decision to censor some of these RS as much of the relevant content originated with other editors, I merely restored them after they were deleted, so I have no opinion on the relevance of the material to the article. It does seem ill-advised to institute this mass-cutting in the middle of an RfC on this very section and will certainly impact its outcome for those who were summoned by the bot and don't take time to view the history of the article. But if you think that's a good idea, I'll defer to your judgment. Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Source selection and proportionality isn't censorship. I've again removed two specific bits of self-referential excess, discussed in a new section below. I see how your RFC references the current article text, but that's not a reason to let clear problems remain unaddressed for as long as it runs on.  That said, I left the extensive external sources and section length as is. I appreciate your including the new option F. but think these are two separate questions: first, should details be in a separate article or section in an article dedicated to related controversies; and second, how much detail should be in this one. – SJ +  15:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sentiment check
I don't think an RfC is necessary, but -- based on the above conversation -- we seem to have general agreement of the need to spinoff the Wikipedia reliability section somewhere else, but no agreement on where to spin it off to ... could we do a flash sentiment check?


 * A: Keep the full reliability section at this article (Anti-Defamation League)


 * B: Spin the reliability section off into its own article


 * C: Merge the content of the reliability section with Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict


 * D: Other (specify)

Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B or C - I'm fine with either B or C. (I do have a slight concern that C may result in Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict becoming overwhelmed with this one thing, however.) Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No matter where it goes, it needs to be cut into WP:PROPORTION at some point. Perhaps Wikipedia coverage of American politics or List of Wikipedia controversies also are alternatives. Going WP:OTHERCONTENT, I see we do have Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate, part of Category:Wikipedia controversies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B or C, with the caveat that the scope of C would need to be expanded to cover "Wikipedia and Israel" and "Wikipedia and Zionism", in addition to its current scope ("Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"). Misha Wolf (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the table of Reliable sources, there are 3 rows for ADL:
 * Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israel/Palestine conflict and antisemitism)
 * Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism)
 * Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israel/Palestine conflict, including related antisemitism)
 * The summaries for these 3 instances are, respectively:
 * "There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source ..."
 * "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 ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict ..."
 * AFAICS, it is the decision described in the 2nd of these 3 rows that has caused the largest backlash from the ADL and other Jewish establishment organizations. For example, Jonathan Greenblatt said, a few days ago, that "we should listen to Jewish people when they tell us what antisemitism is" (see https://forward.com/fast-forward/627208/wikipedias-operator-rejects-jewish-groups-call-to-override-editors-on-adl-trustworthiness/).
 * So it would, IMO, be an error to place the text in an article dealing with "Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" but not with the other points I've mentioned. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging Sj and Nishidani to make sure they see this sub-thread. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B or D: I don't see the point in merging to the current version of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but I can see merging to List of Wikipedia controversies as somewhat suggested above. Personally, I feel it is better for the text to be reformatted rather than an entire article.  If preferred, a sentence could be added to Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to mention the controversy briefly.  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. The RfC is badly formatted, since D doesn't explicitly state the option discussed, It is placed last, as an indeterminate thing and looks like privileging the B/C options that are tantamount to eliding any reference to the issue here .We all agree A doesn't address the problem, so that isn't a serious option.
 * This is simply an issue of taking what has become a major issue recently, particularly for the ADL, and noting it in a paragraph on this page. All would agree what we have is WP:Undue in the sense of being overlong. The whole text as it stands should be therefore shifted to a sister article, with a main link, or put on wikipedia controversies or whatever while a précis of the dispute should remain on this ADL mainpage where it now stands. Three or four sentences at most. Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The whole text as it stands should be therefore shifted to a sister article, with a main link, or put on wikipedia controversies or whatever while a précis of the dispute should remain on this ADL mainpage where it now stands." So B or D, IOW Chetsford (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A KHarbaugh (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A or C - is there enough material to warrant spinning off? Perhaps in the heat of the moment, especially among wikipedians, we may be biased to see any news-coverage of Wikipedia as far more significant than it may be. However, MSM coverage lasted maybe one day before moving on.
 * I suspect that this will die down entirely within a month, if it hasn't died down already. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

ADL letter on Students for Justice in Palestine
The paragraph on the letter dated October 25 in which the ADL requested that university administrations be vigilant that campus student groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine, not cross the boundary between support for Hamas's actions on October 7, for which the letter supplies evidence, to material support for Hamas, is mischaracterized as accusing SJP of material support for Palestine. Nowhere in the letter is this accusation made. The only evidence cited for this a pair of is articles in partisan journals that are opposed to the ADL. The original letter should be cited, or the sentence should be deleted

Here is the citation (easily found, so I do not understand why it is not referred to in the article, except that this sentence was clearly added by a supporter of the position of these partisan journals).

ADL and Brandeis Center Letter to Presidents of Colleges and Universities

https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-and-brandeis-center-letter-presidents-colleges-and-universities EGetzler (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If we include anything about the ADL open letter, we must also include the ACLU open letter blasting the ADL open letter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, the first paragraph of the letter reads:
 * We write to you today on behalf of ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (the Brandeis Center) with an urgent request that your university investigate the activities of your campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for potential violations of 18 USC 2339A and B, and its state equivalents, that is, for potential violations of the prohibition against materially supporting a foreign terrorist organization.
 * It seems like you didn't read it. RAN1 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * is there coverage from outside the ADL about the letter?
 * Many pro-israeli groups will be claiming Providing material support for terrorism for most of these pro-palestinian organizations in the coming weeks and months, but many suits after 2010 have been mostly dismissed. (see US Campaign for Palestinian Rights#Reception User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia reliability section
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)

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


 * Comment I previously opened a semi-formal, structured discussion based on my perception that there was nearly unanimous agreement that needed simply to be crystalized given this is a contentious topic. That discussion revealed that I was mistaken and there is more substantive disagreement about the disposition of this section. Therefore, I've opened a formal RfC. Pinging participants in the previous discussion: KHarbaugh, Sawerchessread, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nishidani, Misha Wolf, Super Goku V. Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B: This section is precisely the situation described by WP:SPINOFF. Moreover, the section has grown to a length that it will become more than half of the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict if it's merged and the bullet-point format of List of Wikipedia controversies may not be suitable to host all of this content. Both cases are generally proscribed by WP:NOTMERGE. Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B Misha Wolf (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A KHarbaugh (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A or B: I don't seport merging, nor do I support removing it. The English Wikipedia community's designation of the reliability of the ADL on the israël-palestine conflict is definitely notable enough to warrant its own article. A Socialist   Trans Girl  22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

*B. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A - For transparency, changed my username from sawerchessread. We have a bias towards wikipedia news. We should recognize it and realize that this was a news story for a day and ended already. Not notable enough for its own article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinking B may make more sense if folks are this insistent.
 * G should definitely be done soon, either way. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * G has already been done to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe D, otherwise E - Frankly, the whole section seems like blatant Navel-gazing. I can't imagine either the ADL or the average reader really cares what Wikipedia's opinion of the ADL's Israel-Palestine viewpoint is. The issue seems very small compared to the ADL, so all the article space we seem to be dedicating to it feels very WP:UNDUE. This seems more like something we should dedicate a sentence at most to. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option "G" was added after my earlier response. I strong support option G. Best way to deal w/ the WP:UNDUE issue. NickCT (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, ADL has put out multiple public statements about the issue, and their CEO discussed it in a TV interview, so ADL clearly cares. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow. They put out public statements!? That's definitely a big deal for a public advocacy group. Advocacy groups don't often put out statements. They must be really concerned. NickCT (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The ADL puts out a million public statements. Wikipedia judging them in 2024 to be unreliable in limited contexts + the ADL taking issue with that is not an important part of this century-old organization's story. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A or B: Because the controversy is specifically about the ADL, the main content should be in this article or its own spinoff. Senorangel (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * D. This topic is within the scope of Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oh, and support for the new G FortunateSons (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment: this reminds me of Talk:Nihad_Awad. 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)
 * Worth discussing at WT:NPOV, see the latest topic there. – SJ + 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 . (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)
 * 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)


 * A or B. As long as some mention of the decision remains on this page, I think we're good. Unbandito (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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. — 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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]"

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Avoiding navel-gazing
It was suggested above by Newimpartial that the recent versions of this article did not demonstrate navel-gazing, however this is a classic of the genre. We can debate whether the level of self-reference is appropriate here, but I just removed three specific examples (reverted again by Newimpartial w/o discussion):


 * Self-ref in the lede. The ADL's reliability has been acclaimed and denounced by many notable arbiters of reliability than Wikipedia over the years. Yet Wikipedia is the only example of reliability-assessment mentioned in the lede.
 * Extended details about the ADL's open letter being addressed to the WMF, and getting a response pointing out that that Foundation is not involved with editorial decisions on the projects. This is inside baseball, not particularly notable or widely reported, and of interest primarily to Wikipedians. Not deserving of its own paragraph that says nothing substantive about the ADL or its work.
 * Excessive sub-sectioning for the section about a Wikipedia controversy, making the article less readable. The ADL's evaluation on WP:RSP changed from green to a mix of green, yellow, and red. This happens to sources; the process isn't overly notable, nor was the response. A blow-by-blow of the timeline of evaluation and various responses adds nothing to the history of the ADL, and is again only of interest to people who follow Wikipedia processes.

It is easy for articles about topics in the news to become coat-racks for trivia that get mentioned in reliable sources, or even questionable sources like a The Hill web series. We should take extra care not to let that happen with topics involving WP itself. – SJ + 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * +1. The ADL is a 110 year old advocacy org, with a storied history in fighting anti-semitism. It's recent pro-Israel advocacy is more contemporary politics, and defeats the purpose of us being an encyclopedic source if we highlight it in the first sentence.
 * Currently, this wikipedia portion makes up slightly more than 10% of the article by word count. That is ludicrous WP:RECENTISM for a news story that lasted maybe 4 days (are there any sources that have occurred after July 1st? Will there be any?). We should be able to clean up this article, and if folks want to make another article with all this info, just look at the history to rebuild if they need to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This does seem a tension b/t people editing to make WP a better source for contemporary takes, despite guidelines to the contrary, and those editing to make it a better encyclopedic reference. If Wikinews had been more successful, I could imagine newsworthy subjects having a sidebar summarizing the latest news (w/ balanced overview of takes from the past year) w/o trying to shoehorn those into the encyclopedic summary (w/ balanced overview of historical perspectives). And we could have a style guide for the time-scale on which to merge summaries of one more deeply into the other.  – SJ +  17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we take Wikipedia as it is sometimes and accept whatever it becomes.
 * Just, this instance seems especially egregious in terms of how little this incident is in the grand scheme of the ADL's history and how inflated it is on this page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus on this page that references to Wikipedia's reassessmet of the ADL's reliability in the context of the Israel-Paleatine conflict is excessive and counts as "navel gazing". That could be true, but only if the coverage of this issue in the article exceeds its representation in recent, reliable sources, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
 * What I have seen is that coverage of this issue in Israel-based sources has been especially prominent over the last month, though sources from many other national news markets have covered the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia is a notable website, and if various reliable sources think our judgement on ADL's reliability is of importance, in it goes. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A mention may be proportionate. This section is about disproportionate coverage, specifically inclusion in the lede, and 5 sections of detail about our assessment process. This was a media cycle, which ended two weeks ago. – SJ + 17:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Covering changes to characterization over time
separating from the previous section, as it's about a different aspect of the article – SJ + 


 * Just because an organization was founded for a certain purpose, doesn't mean that it keeps the same focus over time. I think the sourcing shows that it is increasingly operating as a pro-israel advocacy group. I think it's reasonable for the article to reflect the current state of affairs while mentioning its history. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See U.S. antisemitic incidents hit record high in 2022, ADL report says, Reuters, March 23, 2023.
 * "In January, a gunman took three congregants and a rabbi hostage for more than 10 hours at a Texas synagogue. Four months later, a Hasidic Jewish school bus driver was shot with a BB gun in New York City. In September, a congregant was punched leaving a Portland, Oregon, synagogue."
 * "The number of incidents involving organized white supremacist propaganda activity doubled, incidents at K-12 schools increased by 49% and by two-fifths on college campuses in 2022, the organization found."
 * "Attacks on Orthodox Jews rose by 69%, while bomb threats against Jewish institutions increased by eight to 91."
 * "According to an ADL report in January, a fifth of Americans now believe in six or more antisemitic tropes, almost twice as many as in 2019. The survey asked respondents to rate the truthfulness of 14 statements describing different traditional anti-Jewish tropes including "Jews have too much power" in the business world and on Wall Street."
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Did you mean that because the ADL was cited by other reliable sources on compiling data of antisemitic incidents, its pro-Israeli advocacy property is irrelevant"? Apologize in advance if it feels like I am putting words in your mouth. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The message I addressed seemed to mischaracterize how ADL's interests are proportioned. Being pro-Israel doesn't diminish it's main interest of being against anti-semitism, which I think was shown by the report. See also, Ohio State faces Anti-Defamation League complaint alleging 'failure' to address antisemitism, The Columbus Dispatch, April 8, 2024.
 * "The complaint cites a number of incidents involving Ohio State students including:
 * In November, a group of five Jewish student were attacked by two individuals while walking off-campus. One of the students wearing a necklace with a Hebrew letter was called a slur and two students were punched in the face, which broke one's nose and one's jaw.
 * On Dec. 9, a Jewish student wearing a sweatshirt with the words “Am Yisrael Chai” (which translates "the people of Israel live") in the shape of a Jewish star was confronted by another student who used a profanity to tell him to take off the shirt.
 * On Jan. 26, a Jewish student living in off-campus housing found that their mezuzah (a symbol of Jewish identity) had been torn from their doorpost and thrown on the ground.
 * On Feb. 2, Jewish students eating Shabbat dinner at the campus Hillel were interrupted when other students began banging on the windows and shouting “Free Palestine.”
 * On Feb. 23, a Jewish student’s dorm room door was vandalized with graffiti reading “Free Palestine.”
 * On Feb. 15, Jewish students gathering signatures on a petition against antisemitism at the Ohio Union were confronted by a man saying he would not sign because he wants to “kill Jews.” The next day, an individual stole an Israeli flag from the Ohio Union after a multicultural event there, flashed a “white power” sign and harassed Jewish students."
 * Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pro-Israel advocacy in lead

 * I'm not sure why pro-Israel advocacy group part keeps getting removed? In recent years, ADL has increasingly acted as such. They don't exactly shy away from their support of Israel themselves. We can debate on different wordings, of course, and whether this should be something in the first, second, or third sentence in the lead etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have attempted a compromise.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * note that your latest edit goes against the talk page consensus and the compromise that was reached by . Makeandtoss (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much consensus there is for my compromise. @Bluethricecreamman@Bob K31416@Buidhe@Makeandtoss@Newimpartial@QuicoleJR@Sameboat@Sj, please comment.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no comment. I think that any version of the lede that includes both the fight against anti-semitism and its recent pro-Israel activism is probably fine. Most of these versions seems fine? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No change of mind after another reconsideration: A or B. It must remain in the lede. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the version of the lead. It includes the mention of Israel advocacy (which should indeed be in lead) and has the same content, but is ordered more logically and without skewing to make pro-Israel the main story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thoughts. Dag21902190 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Has this been noted?
Tom Perkins Internal memo reveals Anti-Defamation League surveillance of leftwing activist The Guardian 8 July 2024 Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It mentions our wikipedia discussions by the way. Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d say so, yes Dronebogus (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it said “is this notable” for some reason. I don’t know if it’s noted yet but it’s probably notable. Dronebogus (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems noteworthy to me, maybe a sentence, two at most. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to note, has actioned this. It's three sentences. Personally I'd remove the middle sentence as not adding anything, but it's fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)