m Signing comment by 2603:8080:2001:4300:69DC:C833:A830:363F - "→Amazing!: " |
Pretzel butterfly (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_League&diff=977787132&oldid=977785176 this edit]: This entire thing was far, far too vague. Further, at least one of the sources directly contradicts this claim. [https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=zswoV_EHaxoC&dq=Troubling+the+waters&q=un-american+activities#v=onepage&q=un-american%20activities%20adl&f=false Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century] specifically mentions that [[Jack Tenney]] had labeled "several departments of the ADL as subversive" and had described the AJC as "a communist front". Saying that "It has been alleged" is both vague and a misrepresentation of the source. It almost certainly was "alleged" by someone or other, but the article needs to properly contextualize ''who'' is doing the alleging, and indicate to readers why this would matter. Otherwise this is just spreading 70-year old conspiracy theories. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Defamation_League&diff=977787132&oldid=977785176 this edit]: This entire thing was far, far too vague. Further, at least one of the sources directly contradicts this claim. [https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=zswoV_EHaxoC&dq=Troubling+the+waters&q=un-american+activities#v=onepage&q=un-american%20activities%20adl&f=false Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century] specifically mentions that [[Jack Tenney]] had labeled "several departments of the ADL as subversive" and had described the AJC as "a communist front". Saying that "It has been alleged" is both vague and a misrepresentation of the source. It almost certainly was "alleged" by someone or other, but the article needs to properly contextualize ''who'' is doing the alleging, and indicate to readers why this would matter. Otherwise this is just spreading 70-year old conspiracy theories. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
: Good catch. Thanks for your vigilance. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
: Good catch. Thanks for your vigilance. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[:User:Pretzel butterfly]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]== |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:User:Pretzel butterfly]]''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#RfC_about_AOC's_disputes_with_Jewish_organizations|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:rfc-notify--> Thank you. [[User:Pretzel butterfly|Pretzel butterfly]] ([[User talk:Pretzel butterfly|talk]]) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:34, 6 January 2021
Israel Palestine Collaboration | ||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
YouTube Censorship
I think it is important to mention that the ADL has played a role in determining what content to remove from YouTube. There are several sources that point to this: https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/05/adl-praises-youtube-for-decision-to-remove-racist-extremist-content/ https://bigleaguepolitics.com/youtube-caves-to-adl-removes-top-right-wing-channels-with-no-terms-of-service-violations/ They even admitted to partnering with Google and YouTube themselves: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-applauds-google-and-youtube-in-expanding-initiative-to-fight-online-hate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- BigLeaguePolitics is not a journalistic outlet, it’s a partisan blog in the model of DailyKos - it cannot be used to support claims of fact. Sure, the ADL has worked with YouTube to remove extremist content - we can mention that. But your spin on it doesn’t appear to be supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to use BigLeaguePolitics as an example of a partisan criticism of the policy. I added a source in which a law professor argued that social media censorship may constitute a breach of the public trust, because of promissory estoppel. Unfortunately that got edited out of the article. https://www.wired.com/story/chuck-johnson-twitter-free-speech-lawsuit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- The Wired source does not mention the words "Anti-Defamation League" anywhere in the article. To use it in this article as inferred criticism of the ADL is prohibited original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, NPOV requires that if we are going to offer opinions about something, we include both negative and positive views.
- Second of all, Big League Politics is, as its Wikipedia article discusses, an extremist far-right website known for promoting false and defamatory conspiracy theories. It's not usable as a source here at all whatsoever - we literally don't care what they say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Why did you remove the other source then, the one that mentioned ADL's discrimination against BDS? http://bostonreview.net/politics/emmaia-gelman-anti-defamation-league-not-what-it-seems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edits
Regarding this edit ..it insert that the ADL is a "far-left" organisation, based on:
- Gelman, Emmaia (2019-05-21). "The Anti-Defamation League Is Not What It Seems". Boston Review. Retrieved 2019-09-22. and
- Politics (2017-07-28). "Anti-Defamation League's Slide Into Another Left-Wing Pressure Group". The Federalist. Retrieved 2019-09-22.
The first source says exactly the opposite: that ADL is used against left wing causes. The second source is Bethany Mandel, who I am not sure count as WP:RS for this article, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention that calling the ADL far-left is totally ludicrous. Zerotalk 07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree we need really good sources for it per WP:REDFLAG --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Amazing!
Any reference to the 1993 Roy Bullock/domestic spying scandal, which made headlines in every leading paper, has been carefully removed from this article. Wikipedia is even more corrupt than I thought it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:6180:3342:D5A4:629:6DAF:A182 (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume if you want to re-open discussion of the Roy Bullock issue you'll come back and try to begin a rational, fact-based discussion. Otherwise, I'll assume this is just another conspiracy theorist rant. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Does this article work? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/10/19/jewish-groups-tactics-investigated/96daef6a-a325-4a8a-ba09-da211fc1ba8a/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2001:4300:69DC:C833:A830:363F (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts On My Recently Added Circumcision Paragraph
Alright, time to talk about circumcision! I added a paragraph about ADL's views on circumcision, and I think it is worth noting a concern here. Namely, while I think Jonathan Greenblatt's letter to the Parliament of Iceland and the Reykjavík Grapevine's interpretation of this letter as a threat are important enough such that it should be mentioned in this article, I wish to add it in a way that best respects neutrality. I put it all in one paragraph in the "Political positions" section and mentioned the threat interpretation at the end; I wasn't sure if this warranted creating a whole new subsection in the "Controversies" section. However, since the "Political positions" section generally doesn't include criticism of the ADL's positions, I can respect that my decision may not be the most neutral one. Perhaps the solution is to leave all of my paragraph as it is, perhaps we should break off the part about Iceland into a new subsection of the "Controversies" section, or perhaps we should do something else entirely. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has any thoughts to share.--EditorCirc (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Another editor has removed most of this, which I support. Almost all of the sources you cited are press releases or similar. The article should summarize this information according to independent sources, with press releases only used, with restraint, to fill-in uncontroversial details. Any specific examples of this position should be contextualized by better sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Grayfell, thank you for your feedback, and my apologies for taking such a long time to handle this. Another user actually reverted the removal, but I did go ahead and add news articles as sources (along with doing some trimming of the part I was concerned about to hopefully avoid bias), so the circumcision paragraph is no longer primarily reliant on press releases for sources. EditorCirc (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Un-American Activities Committee
Regarding this edit: This entire thing was far, far too vague. Further, at least one of the sources directly contradicts this claim. Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century specifically mentions that Jack Tenney had labeled "several departments of the ADL as subversive" and had described the AJC as "a communist front". Saying that "It has been alleged" is both vague and a misrepresentation of the source. It almost certainly was "alleged" by someone or other, but the article needs to properly contextualize who is doing the alleging, and indicate to readers why this would matter. Otherwise this is just spreading 70-year old conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC
User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)