Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report
Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report
Decision puts pro-Israel organisation in a group alongside Newsmax, TMZ, and the conspiracist website Infowars
Wikipedia's editors voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League "generally unreliable" on Israel and Palestine as well as the issue of antisemitism, adding the organisation to a list of banned sources, according to a report by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA).
The report said that an "overwhelming majority" of Wikipedia editors voted to deem the organisation unreliable.
The decision puts the pro-Israel organisation, which has a long history of demonising Palestine activism, in a group alongside the National Inquirer, Newsmax, TMZ, and the conspiracist website Infowars.
Many editors at the online encyclopedia said that the ADL undermined its credibility as a reliable source of information by altering how it categorises antisemitic incidents, which include pro-Palestine protests.
The editors also cited controversial statements by ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who has claimed student protests were proxies of Iran and compared the Palestinian keffiyeh head scarf to the swastika.
The ADL also has a long history of attacking Palestinian rights movements with labels of antisemitism, and has previously worked with US law enforcement to spy on Arab-American groups. It has also facilitated and funded US police training trips to Israel.
Spicy
Dicy.
Because it is. The ADL is conflating antizionism with antisemitism, thus labeling even a ton of antizionist jews as antisemitic.
It is deliberate an in itself an act of antisemitism by the ADL definition, which is an irony they turn a blind eye to ofc.
The ADL is a zionist organization. They benefit from all Jews being lumped together with Israel and they strife from antisemitic attacks. This way the ethnonationalist idea of one state for each ethnicity and "no safety for Jews outside Israel" can be furthered. Incidently this is the same what Nazi style antisemites want and there is a history of collaboration between Nazis and Zionists.
Primary source for those interested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)(excluding the Israel/Palestine conflict)
There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Note that the ADL's reliability on antisemitism and the reliability of its database of hate symbols is currently being discussed.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)(Israel/Palestine conflict)
There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, owing to occasional misinformation favoring the Israeli government with respect to the conflict.
It's a surprise it was considered reliable before, but better late than never I guess.
I had quite a few discussions with users here quoting wikipedia articles which used the ADL as a source. I was just as surprised as you are as the ADL has not been reliable in the past either. Might have had something to do with
ADL is supporting ethnic clensing and mass murder.
Wait, Fox News isn't banned?
Goes to show how low the bar is that the ADL failed to meet.
Thier actual news reporting is basically fine. It's the other 90% of their content that's all talking heads that blatantly lies about everything where the problems come in.
I have a relative that only watched the channel. When the actual news segments come it's like a wave of fresh air. But then it very quickly changes to the talking heads bullshit.
I'd never willingly watch any of it though.
Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).