Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

David Irving's website contains information relevant to the ADL

I agree with Molloy and disagree with the other guy who reverts without discussion. --Dogtag 02:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Irving link

To the latest user account, ATS (talk · contribs), which I assume is a reincarnation of Dogtag and the anon IPS, David Irving is not regarded as a reputable or credible source for Wikipedia (or any other credible publication). This means he may only be used as primary-source material for the article about himself, and even then with caution. He can't be used as a secondary source of information about anyone else, because what he says can't be trusted. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

David Irving is a successful & highly regarded historian, his works receiving five star reviews and critical acclaim time and time again. Your claim that David Irving is a non- credible source is totaly unfounded, and is no more than slander and lies.

Here are some neutral opinions on David Irvings works:

One books...stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War, David Irving's Hitler's War - John Keegan, Editor of The Daily Telegraph

A vivid portrait accompanied by much striking and original analysis... again Irving shows himself to be a master of documentation. - Professor John Erickson, Edinburgh

...his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled....Moreover he writes in a clear and vivid style. - Sir Charles Gray, QC ( a judge )

Ignore the hate merchants of the Jewish lobby whose hatred for Irving blinds them. This is, like all of Irving's books, a thoroughly well researched and factual work of the highest order...David Irving has shown himself once again to be a historian of the highest quality...nobody can genuinely dispute his skills as a writer of history and historical biographies. - Amazon.com Review

No praise can be too high for his (Irving's) indefatigable scholarly industry...An exact and scrupulous historian... - Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

A professional historian of noted distinction. - Amazon.com Review

With acclaim like that, I see no reason to dismiss him as a non-credible source, your argument is flawed. All critisim of David Irving seems to come from Jewish origins, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the ADL, various Jewish lobby groups, so they obviously contain bias. - ATS

• So he writes well. The quote about him in the David Irving article is sufficient:

Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and from the same Judge Gray who praised his knowledge and his writing skills:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

So I can't imagine it's hard to comprehend why his opinions regarding any matters concerning Jews are not considered encyclopedic sources -- other than in articles about David Irving. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see the David Irving article has several links to his "Adl Profile", now is the ADL a reputable source? Let's review some neutral criticism:

"The ADL is a pathetic fraud" - Frontpage Magazine [1]

"You (The ADL) are not above twisting words of those you take to task in order to be able to deploy the usual semantic vituperatives" - Ralph Nader

"The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL) is some sort of branch of evil. They don't seem to be at the root of the corrupt tree, but they certainly produce corrupt fruit." - Jim Davidson

The ADL, A History of Jewish Disinformation and Intimidation. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes itself as a civil rights organization, has been in the forefront of an ongoing attempt to label legitimate American-Arab and American-Muslim charitable, political, and informational organizations as fronts for terrorism. This attempt is part of a long-standing ADL policy of discrediting any individual or organization opposed to Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. The ADL's strong political loyalty to Israel as well as its acknowledged ties to Israel's external intelligence agency in addition to its past practices of spreading disinformation and intimidating those who have spoken out against Israeli policies should however serve as a warning about the ADL and the nature of its claims. [2]

I found all that within 2 minutes with google, and there are many more accusations of biased character assasination out there. If you refuse to allow the David Irving link, a noted historian who has been targed by the adl, and who is a leading critic of their activities, I will remove all the links to the ADL from other articles, david duke, don black, etc, as we all know how biased and uncredible the ADL is. - Molloy

• Let's see. An opinion column in Frontpage, primarily complaining that though the ADL is fast to act against right-wing anti-Semites, it doesn't speak out loudly against left-wing anti-Semites. Jim Davidson -- who's that? Oh, a columnist at David Irving's website; his opinion demonstrates precisely what? http://theunjustmedia.com -- man, have you actually READ that site? Oh, maybe you have; besides being viciously anti-Jewish, anti-American, and anti-Christian, it's also a purveyor of holocaust denial. One gets to consider the source. The strong consensus on Wikipedia is that David Irving is not an acceptable source (to put it mildly). If you wish to test the consensus, feel free. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 5 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

Well, no I just found all that via google. However, from reading this page, I can tell you that the general consensus here on Wikipedia is that the ADL is not a reputable source. If you read ADL's policy, you will see how hopelessly biased it is. Molloy

By the way, the above quote from the Irving trial was from a witness called (and paid by) the opposition. Molloy

There's no evidence that the consensus on Wikipedia is that the ADL is an unreliable source; quite the opposite. And the witness called was (unlike Irving) a respected academic. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

And he was paid an obscene ammount of money to say what he did. Jayjg, there is a large majority of editors that openly acknowledge that the ADL is a biased and un-encyclopedic source. Is there a way we can vote on this? Molloy

• Y'know, it's really as simple as this. The opinions of Nazis are unwelcome in civilized society. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 6 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Survey on ADL bias

Section 1

I propose that we conduct a vote which shall last 5 days (beginning Wednesday, 6 July 2005 at 05:18:00 UTC. Votes closing 05:18:00 UTC, Monday, July 11, 2005):

1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
2. Disagree, just to undo Molloy Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Section 2

The purpose of which is to determine if the ADL is a "biased organisation", and whether or not using texts and studies by the organization as a source in articles dealing with their "declared enemies" (such as David Irving) is un-encyclopedic:

1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
2. Disagree, just to undo Molloy Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Section 3

This vote shall not consider anonymous IP addresses, nor registered wikipedians with fewer than 250 edits not directly related to this issue prior to June 6th, 2005:

1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
2. Disagree, just to undo Molloy Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)
3. Disagree strongly. This is a procedural issue which affects the validity of all the votes on various points here. This is not supported by Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. This is also vague and unenforceable, inviting arbitrariness in determining what is "directly related". Furthermore, people who do not meet this capricious restriction have a right to raise objections to it. Gene Nygaard 12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Section 4

The two proposals are as follows:

• PROPOSAL #1: The ADL is a "biased organisation"

• PROPOSAL #2: The ADL should not be used as a source, or linked to in articles dealing with their "declared enemies"

Section 5 (Votes)

• In favor of PROPOSAL #1 (votes MUST be signed by valid Wikipedia editors):

1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:38 (UTC) The ADL is a biased source
2. Disagree, just to undo Molloy Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)
3. Disagree Klonimus 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Opposed to PROPOSAL #1

1. Acerimusdux 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• In favor of PROPOSAL #2 (votes MUST be signed by valid Wikipedia editors):

1. Concur Molloy 6 July 2005 05:38 (UTC) The ADL should not be used in articles dealing with their declared enemies, it is irresponsible and un-encyclopedic.
2. Disagree, just to undo Molloy Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)
3. Disagree Klonimus 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Opposed to PROPOSAL #2

1. Acerimusdux 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Section 6

Comments in favor of neither:

• This poll is nothing more than a trollish abuse of this talk page

Section 7

Comments in favor of either:

Section 8

Miscellaneous commentary:

• Molloy should stick to topics about which he knows something. Byebye! Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Bogus Survey

Ah, I love the choices in this so-called survey: "ADL: Threat or Menace?" --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)

It's quite simple really, aye, nay or abstain. It's not rocket science. Molloy 6 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Indeed. Heads I win, tails you lose. ADL sucks, but this is an obviously trollish ploy. Don't feed the trolls. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 08:50 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't like the ADL, but that's nothing compared to my disdain for neo-Nazi trolls. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Dubious legitimacy of above poll

Interesting how this poll should suddenly appear, and so closely mirror the current poll on Talk:Apartheid. How shallow thy colors, Perfidy. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 08:49 (UTC)

It also appears likely that User:Molloy is a sockpuppet of the anonymous troll who has been wasting a considerable amount of productive wikipedians' time at Talk:Apartheid and elsewhere. This edit is obvious vandalism and should have been dealt with long since. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 08:55 (UTC)

I know about the troll you speak of, and no I'm not him nor a sockpuppet. I find that baseless accusation laughable, I've contributed quite a bit to aviation science and other related topics. My IP is from the NZ ISP Woosh, the annon IP originates in America. Molloy 6 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

• Good work. Thanks. I'll rescind my accusation. I suppose it was silly of me to think that only one person could be so openly biased. You should still undo your vandalism of this talk page. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing your accusation, now, this edit is not vandalism, it is a legitimate survey to ascertain whether the ADL is a biased source. So far, I have been told that there is a general consensus in favour of using the ADL as a source in articles, but from reviewing talk pages, history pages etc, I can assure you the oppisite appears true. This survey will put an end to seemingly endless disputes. Molloy 6 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

It most certainly is vandalism. Your edsum that you archived the discussion is a blatant lie. In addition, there is absolutely nothing about talk: pages that could lead anyone to the conclusion that their purpose is to conduct surveys about the objectivity of the organization about which that article treats: conducting such a survey is not only a violation of WP:NOR, it is utterly irrelevant, as the sample size and population are too small and selective to demonstrate anything useful whatsoever. If your gripe is about using the ADL as a source of information for OTHER articles, your survey needs to be conducted on the talk pages for the articles in question. If it deals with the reliability or notability of the ADL (an organization, for the record, which I loathe) as a source for ANY article in WP, this is something that needs to be taken up in a much more general forum. In either case, such a poll is UTTERLY out of place on Talk:Anti-Defamation League, and amounts to nothing more than trollish POV-pushing. That aside, your comments are utterly irrelevant, and I invite you again to undo your vandalism of this talkpage. Thank you. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Certain comments stricken. I was in error. The "poll" is still frivolous, WP:POINT, and everything else I said about it, but my accusation that this edit summary was a blatant lie and that the edit itself constituted vandalism was wrong. I didn't realize that some people have a really poor idea of what "archiving" means, and that what I was looking for in the "archive" had simply since disappeared because it had been later sucked back into this Talk page, here. Incendiary accusations of sockpuppetry, lying and vandalism withdrawn, but the poll is still inappropriate and irrelevant. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Stop crying foul, it is a legitimate survey. It does not have any legal or binding status, I'm just asking for peoples opinion. If you don't like it, go read another encyclopedia. Molloy 7 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Molloy? Was this post[3] by 202.74.216.244 (talk · contribs) you? Tomer ^TALK 05:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

This poll is not valid or useful. Truth is not decided by majority vote. --FOo 13:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(Removed personal attack)

Above unsigned personal attack courtesy of 24.238.63.143 (talk · contribs), contributed 18:59, July 19, 2005 UTC (added sig: Tomer ^TALK 21:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC))

• Mm hm. solargeneral is an explicitly anti-semitic website (that very page you link to says, Finally! A Kosher-Free News Media!). Run along and play with your white robes, jackboots, or whatever outfits make you feel safe from the "yiddish scourge". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

to jpgordon

Why was the following link delete? Just wondering. --Vizcarra 06:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Anti-ADL Portal with critical articles written by Jews and Gentiles about the ADL.
  • Read my previous comment (one line above yours.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League

This organisation is a joke. It is an admitted front for the Mossad, and its only public aim (its true aim is intelligence gathering) is to accuse anyone who criticises Israeli policies of 'anti-Semitism', including members of large anti-Zionist Jewish groups such as Jews Against Zionism and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Control. They are also responsible for unconstitutional 'hate laws' being passed in many nations, and are used as a means of gathering intelligence when it is otherwise illegal to do so, by the Mossad, who control them. Please. Anyone naive enough to fall for this ADL garbage needs to have their head examined. Any Jew in their right mind would see that they are nothing but a pro-Israel group, and are not interested even remotely in the protection of Jews in general. Hell, they have been caught funding neo-Nazi groups, as part of an apparent Hegelian dialectical problem-reaction-solution scam to get 'hate crimes' legislation passed. These people make me sick. Abe Foxman, you are already in hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.207.234 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No reference to conservative critics?

The ADL is a generally left-wing group supporting affirmative action and gun control while opposing school voucher programs. These issues have little to nothing to do with Jewish Civil Rights. Would it not be more accurate to consider them a "religious left" organisation? jme

I have no idea if they are left-wing, but they're certainly not religious. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)