Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 4

I'm so sorry
anti defamation league "fighting against the lies about the jewish people" well right. Could you people help me? I'm looking for the website of the: German anti defamation league: fighting against the lies that all germans are drunk, fat, nazis and evil. French anti defamation league: fighting against the lies that all frenchs are coward, stinky, dumb and fags. Brazilian anti defamation league: fighting against the lies that all brazilians are blacks, play soccer, are drugdealers and spend the whole life in a giant carnival. Spanish anti defamation league: fighting agains the lies that all spaniards participated in some way of the inquisition and that they are guilty for the bad economic situation of latin america. Canadian anti defamation league: fighting agains the lies that all canadias are jealous of americans, slow, idiots and cheap beer drinkers. Muslim anti defamation league: fighting against the lies that every muslim is a terrorist who hates freedom and happiness. Adolf Hitler anti defamation league: fighting against the lies that have surrounded this man during almost a century by now. oh I'm sorry i think that do this would be a little thing called FREE WILL and obviously the first anti defamation league would react.

thank you very much for helping me providing the weblinks, if it wasn't too hard i would like to get the adress and phone of all the institutions. thanks again guys, you're all great.

This page needs serious work
This article reads like the result of months of battles between ADL supporters and detractors, each side putting in something to justify its position rather than trying to weave it all into an impartial article. The detractors, in particular, seem to be using questionable sources and practices to have the article reflect their point of view.


 * 1) The "Positions" section needs some serious work. The ADL's controversial relations with people like Berlusconi is certainly deserving of a mention, but is it the ADL's most-important position?
 * 2) There is no doubt that the ADL has warmed up somewhat to evangelical Christians in recent years due to the Israel issue, but what evidence exists that the ADL is close to Pat Robertson? According to Bill Berkowitz of the left-leaning site WorkingForChange, Robertson and Abe Foxman don't like each other very much.
 * 3) The sources of many of the criticisms of the ADL in the article are obscure or unmentioned. For example, the "Positions" section reads, "the organization has been accused of "anti-Muslim McCarthyism" by American Muslims (sic) groups such as the America (sic again) Muslim Alliance." I've never heard of the "American Muslim Alliance," and there is no wikilink to it here. What is it?
 * 4) No source is mentioned for the very serious allegations that the ADL spied on the NAACP and "actively opposed" Nelson Mandela. The article says San Francisco court and prosecutor's documents are the source of links between the ADL and the apartheid-era South African government, but does not have a citation reference for those claims. Similarly, Foxman's defense lacks a reference. You really need a reference for a quotation.
 * 5) Should we really reprint an entire paragraph from some guy named Cedric Muhammad? I'd never heard of him. From his website, it looks like the former Wu-Tang Clan manager is just a blogger who fashions himself a political consultant. Shouldn't we just have a link to his comments in the "external links" section?
 * 6) I feel the same way about the paragraph from "freelance journalist" Paul N. McCloskey. Who is he? Why is his opinion more worthy of inclusion than some guy on Usenet? (And is he related to Pete McCloskey?)
 * 7) The absence of some references from the text would be somewhat acceptable if the "External Links" section consisted only of links to reliable, impartial sites. But under "Criticism," we have a link to the left-wing site CounterPunch, the page of quixotic economist Jude Wanniski, the anti-Israel Washington Report and, least controversially, the left-leaning Village Voice. All of those publications have a right to their opinions, but from Wikipedia's standpoint, they shouldn't serve as the only sources for one side of an argument.
 * 8) The "ADL files controversy" section reads, "In the early 1990s U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey (Republican, Californian) filed a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against the ADL." But Pete McCloskey was out of office by then.

I would try to edit the article myself, but I think it's up to the ADL's detractors to improve their contributions to it. My instinct would just be to delete all of the unsourced information, but that would weight the article heavily onto the pro side. Mwalcoff


 * There seems to be a serious lack of balanced information on the ADL in regards to criticism of the group. It seems that the criticism is limited to single articles, instead of the massive archives available on the organizations criminal activity. The link: http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.php gets deleted from the criticism page, even though some of the articles listed on http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.php are written by Jews or former members of the ADL. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.33.120 (talk &bull; contribs) 07:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ouch, that's bad they are getting deleted. Well I think the article is pretty well balanced generally. It reflects that the ADL are a highly controversial organization and I agree with the parent post fully on that. It reflects well that they have changed over the years. I thought the Chomsky quote was excellent in that section. What the article is missing though is the ADL's sponsorship and creation of 'hate crime' legislation in Canada, parts of Europe and the current attempt in the US with S1145, which some strongly believe is designed to create a hate crimes bureaucracy a la Canada. Also the ADL's rewarding police officers with trips to Israel, offering training to police as regards their ideals etc may be worth a mention. http://www.truthtellers.org/hatecrimes.html &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.159.26.65 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:59, October 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely certain which is more offensive; that you are surprised that the solar general site gets removed or that you feel that something having been written by Jews excuses it from being anti-semitic (I can only imagine what you make of the (incorrect) theories that Hitler was Jewish, or what you think of Bobby Fischer). www.solargeneral.com has been removed, but the good folk at google have allowed us to see some of the more Italic textinterestingItalic text comments that they've made. Among them, an article http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Cu4bAT1vi18J:www.solargeneral.com/SG/imperium/imp62.html+site:www.solargeneral.com&hl=en entitled "The Negro in America," which has some choice phrases like "Marriage is almost unknown among the Negroes, and the women raise the large families." Another article http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ThBjAfOPIRYJ:www.solargeneral.com/ja/slavery/victoriasandisraelsuglysecret.html+site:www.solargeneral.com&hl=en begins with the utterly NPOV line of "Of the thousands of women brought to Israel each year to work as prostitutes, many are enslaved, beaten and raped by their pimps." I have no particular position in regards to the ADL, but you must have something better than anything hosted by this horrible, horrible web-site


 * The solargeneral website is nothing but a foaming at the mouth Jew-hatred site. Its motto: Finally! A Kosher-Free News Media!. (It doesn't seem to be online now, for whatever reason; perhaps its ISP came to conclusion that spreading hate is not conducive to business.) "Truthtellers" is not much better; I recommend readers here take a good look at it. It does seem more concerned with protecting the right to hate homosexuals -- and act out on it -- than protecting the right to hate Jews, though: This legislation gives special federal protection to select groups including homosexuals. Throughout history, many homosexuals have sodomized underage boys.. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, the editor I'm responding to has a FAQ about him! Very interesting. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, you make some personal observations about those sites Jpgordon, the 'act out on it' bit is always covered in countries by existing laws. But again the ADL's role in the creation of hate crime legislation and hate crime bureaucracy is highly applicable to the article.

ANC
I'm moving the material about the ANC to the talk page, until someone can get proper sources for this stuff. The accusations have been there unsourced for months, and I think we should be careful with this type of thing (I have no idea what the truth is). -- JJay 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * *Before the fall of the former South African apartheid regime, the ADL actively opposed and labeled anti-Semitic, the anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC), led by Nelson Mandela.


 * ''Collaboration with South Africa's Apartheid Regime
 * The ADL spied on the anti-apartheid African National Congress, before the ANC became the ruling party in South Africa. According to San Francisco court documents, the ADL also spied on 28 other anti-apartheid organizations.''


 * According to a report released by San Francisco's District Attorney, the ADL's "fact finder" Roy Bullock admitted that he was paid by a South African intelligence agent to spy on anti-apartheid activists.


 * In reference to Roy Bullocks's espionage activities on behalf of the ADL and apartheid South Africa's government, freelance journalist Paul N. McCloskey wrote:


 * "He (Bullock) had reported on a visit to California by the ANC's Chris Hani, ten days before the man expected by many to succeed Nelson Mandela, returned home to be brutally murdered... After his exposure, Bullock was put directly on the ADL's payroll. ADL's position on the ANC was identical to that of the South African government - they considered it to be a 'terrorist' 'communist' organization. At the time, Israel was furnishing arms to maintain the apartheid regime in power."


 * The ADL's stated reason was that they disliked the ANC's public support of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Abe Foxman, ADL's national director, explained: "At the time we exposed the ANC, they were communist. They were violent, they were anti-Semitic, they were pro-PLO and they were anti-Israel." The ADL shared its findings with South African intelligence organisations which some say aided the apartheid regime's fight against South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle.

The Los Angeles Times covered the ADL case in great detail at the time, and as I recall, what they said corresponds to the material above. Unfortunately the Times, which would be a non-controversial source, does not have this material archived on the web. I found other sources on the web which appear more trustworthy than the previously cited http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/news8.htm", and I will re-write that section using those two sources. -- HK  00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I note now, after re-writing that section, that the information from the sources I cite conflicts with the material in the "ADL Files controversy" section, which also needs work. For example, the "files section" report lists the year of the police raids as 1993 -- I believe that it was 1992. That section should be re-written and properly documented as well. -- HK  01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reconsideration
I think we should hold off on the inclusion of the passages at issue until we can get primary-source, or at least neutral-source, confirmation of the allegations.

The follwing are the items of concern:

Following police raids of ADL offices in 1992, there were embarassing revelations about ADL collaboration with the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

''The ADL spied on the anti-apartheid African National Congress, before the ANC became the ruling party in South Africa. The ADL reportedly also spied on other anti-apartheid organizations.''
 * No problem with the first sentence. The appropriateness of the second depends on what follows.

No primary-source material is referenced here. The sources mentioned are the anti-Israel Washington Report and the Bay View newspaper. The Bay View column mentioned also includes the following statement, which should shed light on the biases of its author:

The “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians from their land has never ceased, nor has Israel’s expropriation of what remains, as attested to by Israel’s ongoing construction of the 25-foot high “apartheid wall” through sections of the West Bank that has received international condemnation and whose legality is soon to be reviewed by the World Court in the Hague.

The spying allegations, therefore, cannot yet be taken as fact. We continue:

According to a report released by San Francisco's District Attorney, the ADL's "fact finder" Roy Bullock admitted that he was paid by a South African intelligence agent to spy on anti-apartheid activists.

If the link took us to the prosecutor's report, this allegation (which would still just be an allegation) would be worth noting. However, the link is not to the primary source but rather to an article on the left-wing Counterpunch website. I don't think that merits inclusion.

Abe Foxman, ADL's national director, explained to the Jewish Bulliten'': “At the time we exposed the ANC, they were communist. They were violent, they were anti-Semitic, they were pro-PLO, and they were anti-Israel. You’re going to tell me I don’t have the legitimacy to find out who they were consorting with, who their buddies are, who supports whom?” ''

Again, the link is not to the "Jewish Bulliten" (sic) story but rather to the Bay View editorial. It's hearsay. San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith agreed in 1993 not to file criminal charges against the ADL, with the condition that ADL contribute $75,000 to educational programs over the next three years and refrain from soliciting confidential public records that it knew were illegally obtained.

If this information came from The Chronicle or Examiner, I would trust it. But it comes from The Washington Report.

The problem with this section reflects the problems with the article as a whole. Much of the criticism of the ADL does not come from the kind of source from which we can take a claim as fact. It's one thing to print Noam Chomsky's opinion of the ADL, assuming we explain where Chomsky's coming from as a left-wing, anti-Israel guy. But to state a serious allegation as fact because a left-wing or anti-Israel publication says it is not the right way to go.

The claims made in this section can all be verified from primary or neutral sources if someone is willing to do the research. Until then, I don't think they should be included. -- Mwalcoff 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to put a fine point on it, I don't think there is such a thing as a "neutral source." But let me ask you something else -- are any of the facts here in dispute? Has the ADL ever denied that the described events took place? I am in favor of getting primary sources, but I am not in favor of deleting this information in the meantime. As I mentioned, I read the accounts in the L.A. Times at the time the events were unfolding. The events themselves are undisputed. The dispute, to the extent that there is one, is about the ADL's motives. I tried to avoid any characterization of the ADL or its motives in the way that I re-wrote that section. -- HK  16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar enough with the issue to say whether it's true or not. But it's unprofessional to use second-hand allegations from people with an obvious axe to grind against the ADL. -- Mwalcoff 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Washington Report is not a mainstream political organization and it probably should not be used a reliable source. It's could be a source for its own views, for example, "Critics like the W-R view the ADL as....") -Willmcw 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the Washington Report is being challenged as a source, I removed it -- the only section that came exclusively from that source was the one describing the plea bargain negotiated between DA Arlo Smith and the ADL. In the reporting of a factual matter like that, the biases of the Washington Report should not be an issue, but I think it were better to include that info in the "files controversy" section, and we can hash it out there. -- HK  16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ADL Criticism Archive Removed from wikipedia

 * Why has the archive of critical articles by Jews and Gentiles about the ADL, been repeatedly removed from wikipedia? The link http://www.solargeneral.com/ja/adl.php has been removed unfairly and this link has dozens of articles by not just non-jews, but jews. Can someone please explain this bias of keeping out critical links on the ADL? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.24.236 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC).


 * See Talk:Anti-Defamation_League/archive3 and the "This page needs serious work" section above for a discussion of why the Solargeneral site is not considered a legitimate source of criticism -- Mwalcoff 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is critcism of the ADL being removed? "Critics have argued that the ADL is a Jewish hate group whose mission is to serve as Israel's agent in the U.S., protecting its interests at the expense of American freedom." Source was cited as national vanguard magazine.

ANC
I removed some text on relations between the ADL and the African National Congress uploaded by Lyndon LaRouche editor. The veracity of and sources for the claims notwithstanding, the section is systemically biased and misleading and has no place in an encyclopedia. At first glance, it appears as if Herschel found a non-LaRouche source for his material on the ADL, thus circumventing the ArbCom ruling banning editors from inserting LaRouche-related material to non-LaRouche articles. On that note User:Fubar Obfusco restored Herschel's section, writing in his edit summary "deleted text doesn't seem to have been LaRouchies -- it's got citations to mainstream media sources." Nevertheless, Herschel's use of "mainstream media sources" is only a smokescreen for his attempts over the course of more than a year to insert propaganda inspired by an "anti-Semite" and "small-time Hitler" (according to Chip Berlet ) who considers the ADL a part of a global conspiracy of Jewish bankers who rule the world. The text is worded in a way to make it seem as if the ADL supported the policy of apartheid; it did not and never did, and the suggestion is just an attempt to smear the organization a la LaRouche. While the ADL did express opposition to the ANC years ago, in the Cold War years, many other mainstream Western-based global NGOs also expressed opposition to the ANC because, at the time, it was widely considered pro-Soviet and stridently anti-Israel, along with many other "national liberation movements" in the Third World. It was only after the end of the Cold War, the transition to multiracial democracy in 1994, and the drafting of South Africa's new strongly liberal constitution that the ANC's leader Nelson Mandela emerged as almost universally well regarded statesman in the United States. In fact, Mandela was a somewhat controversial figure in this country as recently as a couple of decades ago. (Personally, I think that over time history has clearly shown that the ADL was at best somewhat misguided in its opposition to the ANC during the Cold War years. I personally thought so at the time as well.) To focus so much attention on the subject in this article, without reference to the context of the Cold War, is clearly an attempt to smear the ADL, thus serving the agenda the Jew-baiting fascist demagogues like LaRouche who give the ADL a reason to exist. 172 08:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, 172, please avoid personal attacks. They don't make your argument more credible. Secondly, the section that you object to was not written by myself -- it has been in this article for over a year. It was poorly sourced, however, and in response to a request on this page, I re-wrote it with better sources. It is a neutral description of undisputed facts, as you more or less concede. Unless you can dispute the facts, the section should remain in the article. If you feel that it is insufficiently NPOV, add information to balance it. The quote from Foxman contains pretty much all the cold war material that you reference. -- HK  16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't read any personal attacks here, but I could have just overlooked them. HK, what bits do you object to? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The attacks are Ad hominem -- he presents a false and slanderous characterization of LaRouche, while presenting a conspiracy theory that I am acting as a LaRouche agent, tarred with the same brush. -- HK  15:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, it does seem a bit that way. However, I believe that 172 is correct that the ArbCom forbade the addition of La Rouche info on non La Rouche pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Herschelkrustofsky, it is not a conspiracy theory. You are a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, are you not? 172 04:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, my characterization of LaRouche is correct. He is an anti-Semite and a cult leader. See the Berlet article cited in my last reply. At any rate, LaRouche notwithstanding, your posts on the ADL (an organization that you and a certain cult leader who calls himself "the world's leading economist" happen to dislike) are systematically biased. Their position on the ANC at the time was not out-of-the-mainstream at the time for a Western-based global NGO; your content fails to provide that context. Again, the veracity of your claims notwithstanding, the facts are woven together in a way that happens to make the ADL look like the kind of sinister group as it is perceived by you and LaRouche. 172 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI -- I personally think LaRouche has nothing of value to say, but we don't generally describe groups as "cults" on Wikipedia. Moreover, it seems to me that the spying and ANC issues are pretty relevant here -- we shouldn't be excluding them just because they make the ADL look bad. The ANC is a pretty damn important group, historically speaking; and the ADL's opposition to same is a rather interesting situation.


 * I'm concerned that exclusion of this issue -- under the excuse that LaRouchies want to make a fuss out of it -- isn't good for the neutrality of the article. Removing the issue entirely, rather than simply addressing it as one more aspect to fit in to a neutral and descriptive article, has too much of the sense of whitewashing. --FOo 04:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: we don't generally describe groups as "cults" on Wikipedia. Correct. I would not describe LaRouche as a cult leader in an article; but we are not obliged to follow NPOV on article talk pages. On talk pages, we can 'tell it like it is,' so to speak. Re: The ANC is a pretty damn important group, historically speaking; and the ADL's opposition to same is a rather interesting situation. It's not really too interesting. I don't know if have any memory of the 1960s and 1970s, so you may not be aware that the image of the ANC and Mandela was very different thirty years ago in the United States from their image today in the U.S. Outside far-left circles, the ANC was widely regarded as a pro-Soviet terrorist organization set up along Marxist-Leninist lines, and noted for its strident hostility to the State of Israel. Indeed, there was quite a strong degree of truth to this image at the time. Herschelkrustofsky's observations concerning the changes in the ADL's view of the ANC and Mandela really have more to do with the ANC than the ADL. 172 04:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the merit of your opinions, but your fallacious attempt to delete this accurate information is shockingly contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia, as well as many of its policies. Sam Spade 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade, there is an infinite amount of information on any subject. It is inevitable that editors of an encyclopedia will have to make judgments based on a criterion of relevance for the inclusion and exclusion of certain information. Here we have a long passage removed from the ADL article because it is describing something that has more to do with changes in the public perception of the ANC and Mandela originating from the ANC and Mandela rather than the ADL... I would like to find a related article where we can move some of Herschelkrustofsky's observations, but I can't think of any. (I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Worldwide perception of the African National Congress" a la Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden.) If you have any suggestions, please let me know. 172 21:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like you're saying that the ADL's actions towards the ANC are somehow about the ANC, but not about the ADL. It seems to me that this would be analogous to saying that if I do something to you, my actions are about you, but not about me. That doesn't really make sense to me. If Party X does something to Party Y (e.g. spying on) then this certainly is a fact about Party X. --FOo 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are correct that of course it is a fact about the ADL. But just because something is a fact about a particular subject does not mean that it is relevant to an encyclopedic entry on the subject. On the matter in question concerning the ADL and the ANC, the change in the ADL's stance vis-a-vis the ANC does not have to do much at all with any (say) reassessment of on the part of the ADL of its stance toward Third World "national liberation movements." It was the ANC that went through the noteworthy change. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ANC, under Mandela, quickly shed its former Soviet and Marxist orientations and embraced market economics and Western-style liberal democracy, as it adjusted to changes in the international political environment. 172 22:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I take a different view of the situation. If the ADL is controversial for spying on the ANC in the 80s, then there's nothing wrong with including that. (If, on the other hand, it was not considered controversial at the time and only looks bad now because of changes made by the ANC, I don't think it should be included.) My objection also has nothing to do with the fact that the original contributor is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. I am, however, concerned that no source for the information is listed. We need an "according to..." or a footnote. -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I can't believe that hardly anyone sees the point that the text was crafted and twisted in a way to cry out, "Ooh, the ADL supported apartheid!" Does anyone here have any memory of the 1960s and 1970s? At that time Mandela was only well regarded among far-left Marxist circles in the United States-- quite different from his widespread reputation today as freedom fighter in the tradition of figures like Gandhi and King. In fact, as the Cold War was heating up in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1970s, Mandela was widely seen as a Soviet-backed terrorist in much the same light as (say) Arafat (of course, before the Oslo Accords), and thus a danger to the 'free world.' This is not my view of the ANC and Mandela now; nor was it even my view even three decades ago. But I'd hate to see the LaRouche movement be successful in using Wikipedia to promote their views, making this article unfairly biased against the ADL. 172 23:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with LaRouche, and I suspect that 172 is deliberately trying to muddy the waters by repeatedly insisting that it does. Here is the version of "ANC" section that sat in the article for a very long time before being removed by User:JJay on December 13. He expressed the view that this version was poorly sourced, and I agreed. Here is the new version that I wrote to replace it, subsequently removed by 172. See the earlier discussion here. -- HK  04:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry for opening up the can of worms with LaRouche. I will not mention him again in this discussion. Still, the material is baised against the ADL and misleading for the reasons that I stated above. As I stated earlier, there is no reason to reinsert it other than to induce the reaction, "Ooh, the ADL supported apartheid!" 172 07:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the reason not to remove it is precisely to inform the reader that the ADL acted in various ways against the ANC. If the effect of this is to suggest that the ADL ideologically supported apartheid, that would be wrong ... but it isn't. It's more illustrative of the very complexity and nonobviousness of partisan group politics.


 * I'm rather concerned by the almost prurient attitude you seem to be suggesting other editors have here. "Ooh, the ADL supported apartheid!" would be an irresponsible and unworthy approach for anyone to this article. Please try to assume good faith here. --FOo 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The ANC has never been close to one of the major activities of the ADL. These are relatively unimportant anecdotes deserving of no more than one or two sentences in this article, unless one's goal is indeed to make the ADL look bad. 172 08:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats what he means about assuming bad faith. We both disagree with your position, and desire a neutral, informative article. IMO your deletions and aggressive comments are more suggestive than our insistance on the inclusion of cited informations. Sam Spade 09:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is criticism removed?
Why has the entry below which was placed in criticism been removed? Seems very odd to be!


 * The Dark Side of the Anti-Defamation League


 * Hmm ... maybe because neo-Nazis are not a reputable source on the subject? --FOo 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I watched the entire 8 part series and I would like to know which part is not accurate, because I have yet to see a better video on the group. Lokison 08:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like anything that fairly and accurately criticizes jews automatically becomes censored on wiki. Shame on you. Lokison 04:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Riiight. I'm sure the "National Vanguard" is "fair and accurate." Hey, aren't you blocked for spewing racist filth all over Wikipedia? -- Mwalcoff 13:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly you have a point here. Anything National Vanguard has to say about the ADL is most likely just a bunch of propaganda but

in turn whatever the ADL has to say about National Vanguard is "The Truth". One good way out of that is too realize that National Vanguard is an organization run by a bunch of racist cooks without funding while the ADL is run by another bunch of racist cooks with plenty of funding. A shame really they can't get along, they have so much in common. 84.160.254.235 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More contention over ANC/Apartheid section
David Cohen's re-write of the South Africa/Apartheid section was considerably more POV than the previous version that it replaced. Cohen makes a big effort to justify the ADL activity on the grounds that they were fighting the Cold War; however, let's remember that the raids on the ADL took place in 1993, and the Cold War supposedly ended in 1989. Saying that the ADL was doing this "As part of its worldwide information-gathering activities focused on monitoring extremist and hate groups" seems like advocacy, since the whole irony of spying on the Anti-Apartheid movement is that it was not generally regarded as a bunch of "extremist and hate groups" (any more than were the NAACP, ACLU, United Auto Workers, or the hundreds of other organizations that the ADL spied on.) The ADL's claims that everything they do is motivated by a campaign against extremists and hate groups are adequately covered elsewhere in the article. Lastly, the verbiage expended to discredit "Counterpunch" seems unnecessary, because the controversy was covered in all mainstream press in California at the time. In order to put this matter to rest, someone is eventually going to have to go to a library where they keep archives of the LA Times or the San Francisco chronicle and source this article from those publications. -- HK  13:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Herschelkrustofsky, I am not trying to justify the ADL's actions; I am trying to describe things neutrally by replacing loaded terms like "collaboration" and "spying" with accurate but unbiased words, and including context to prevent false inferences. I removed none of the allegations made against the ADL.  Let's take it point-by-point:
 * Title -- "Monitoring of the ANC in South Africa" vs. "Collaboration with South Africa's Apartheid Regime": The first description is a far better description of what the ADL is accused of doing (and what they admit doing).  There is virtually nothing here to support a charge of "collaboration," implying that