Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) issues

Drakken, as a supposedly new editor (albeit one who created a new article as his very first edit - something I haven't learned to do after a year of editing), you obviously haven't learned two of WP's most important guidelines: 1. that properly cited text from WP:RS reliable sources should not be deleted without a very good reason, and 2. that full reverts of other editors' work should not be done lightly. I strongly suggest you read the wp:verifiability and wp:revert pages to better understand these WP policies.

Drakken, these WP guidelines are the reason I was very careful with my edit. I did not revert back to my previous version after Jayjg had made his edits, instead I worked with the version he wrote and improved it. My latest version (that you deleted) did not remove any of the text that Jayjg had left in his version of the article. You will notice that I did not delete text, I only rearranged it to organize it into sections, and I fully explained my reasons for doing so. Having left all of his text in place, I then edited it in a couple of places, and I explained each of these edits in detail. I then added new text, citing from WP:RS and providing good links to those WP:RS.

Drakken, unfortunately you have done none of these things. You have ignored my explanation above of the weaknesses of the version that you restored. You then removed several instances of properly cited text from WP:RS and you failed to even suggest why. Even worse you performed a full revert to a previous version of the document, fully undoing all of my edits. Please read wp:revert: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." The only reason you provided for your wholesale reversion was an inaccurate claim that "Your version made the secondary usage into the primary one, relegated the most common use to secondary status". This is simply not true - unlike Jayjg, who used WP:OR to champion one usage of the term - I present all of them in the most logical order without commenting on their relative frequency. In fact the subsection devoted to "Antisemitism" is by far the largest section. I recommend you re-read my version which I will restore so that all editors (including you) will have a chance to discuss it here in Talk.

Drakken, if you think my edits were problematic, biased, or inaccurate, then please bring that here to this Talk page so we can discuss it. WP is not supposed to be a battlefield - it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Jgui's revert for reasons stated, though I was confused about your formatting of this talk section :-) Carol Moore 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Added subheads, adjusted indentation. We have at least two discussions going, which was getting confusing. (In future, note that a subhead like "Edit" is too general). --John Nagle (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To Jgui: I did think your edits were problematic, and I did discuss it here on Talk. In fact - you are responding to some of the arguments I posted here. If I removed a cited source - this was unintentional. Your own edit summary led me to believe all you did was rearrange material, and so I assumed that by undoing it, I would be just rearranging it back. What was the sourced material I removed? Could you please elaborate on why your preferred order is 'the most logical order'? It seems to me that frequency of usage plays a big part in deciding the most logical order, and if the antisemitic usage is the most frequent (as would seem from the fact that that section is by far the largest section), it should not be tucked away at the end of the article, or or relegated to secondary mention in the opening paragraph. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the statement that "if I removed a cited source, that was unintentional", I've restored the J.J. Goldberg quote that was somehow removed. (That's the editor of The Forward writing about the Jewish Lobby as having real existence, quoted in a small Jewish newspaper.) --John Nagle (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

John, the J.J. Goldberg item is simply another example of the use of the term. I could equally well bring an example from Osama bin Laden where he uses the term. However, both would be original research. Please explain where Goldberg discusses the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I don't understand how you're reading Berlet as discussing the term, but Goldberg not.--G-Dett (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That material was left over from earlier versions of the article; I didn't write it. I've modified it to only include the material in which Berlet discusses the use of the term. What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, of course, the part where J.J. Goldberg says:

“We don’t talk about the Jewish lobby. We pretend it doesn’t exist. We pretend we are powerless.” ... In a talk Sunday night at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, he called for an open and frank discussion of the “Jewish lobby” as a positive force in the United States. “We need to talk about these things. We do good. We should be proud of it,”

Clearly he's talking about the Jewish lobby. He's even written an entire book about the Jewish lobby, called "Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment."[1] In that book, he says things like "And there have been threats to those in Washington who opposed Israeli policy; the senators and representatives sent down to defeat, like Charles Percy and Paul Findley, for defying the Jewish lobby. It's hard to characterize Goldberg as anti-Semitic; he's the editor of one of the leading Jewish publications in the US. Denying this is futile. --John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

John, please explain exactly where he discusses the term. I think my questions and objections have been clear and consistent all along. Per WP:NEO, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). As explained many times, there are tens of thousands of sources that use the term - for every J.J. Goldberg, I can bring a Mark Weber. However, we are not going to engage in WP:NOR battles; instead we are going to bring sources that discuss the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Goldberg is discussing the Jewish lobby, which is the subject of this article. He's not merely using the term. I can agree that references which merely use the term in passing are not relevant, unless they're unusually notable. But references which discuss the Jewish lobby are appropriate to the Wikipedia article on the Jewish lobby.

The problem, of course, is that there are editors here who deny the existence of a Jewish lobby. This leads to a line of reasoning that since there is no Jewish lobby, the only thing to be discussed is the term "Jewish lobby" as an abstraction, or as a slur. Sources which talk about the organization, structure, and influence of the Jewish lobby are therefore irrelevant. This is, I think, Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s basic position.

The problem with that position is that it's inconsistent with multiple reliable sources. The editor of the Forward says there's a Jewish lobby. The Economist says there's a Jewish lobby. The head lobbyist for AIPAC says there's a Jewish lobby. We have solid cites for all of these. At this point, denial is silly.

As for the claim that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism, we've disposed of that. WP:NEO says "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined...". We have cites for uses of "Jewish lobby" going back thirty years, so the term was not "recently coined". There's even an entry in a political dictionary. So WP:NEO does not apply. --John Nagle (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I must say that I have to echo George William Herbert's frustration with you. For example, you keep claiming that "The head lobbyist for AIPAC says there's a Jewish lobby," despite the fact that, as been pointed out to you multiple times by various editors, the former lobbyist for AIPAC never uses the term Jewish lobby. As has been explained to you, the term is used only in the headline of the article, and headlines are written by newspaper editors, not columnists. This was pointed out a week ago in a section about the article in question, here: Talk:Jewish_lobby#Quote_from_Michael_Bloomfield You ignored the section then, and continue to do so, as you do much of the discussion on this page. Regarding the rest, you seem to want to write an article about Israel lobby in the United States; that article, however, already exists. This is an article about the term "Jewish lobby"; thus it uses sources that discuss the term, rather than cobbling together cherry-picked Google searches of uses of the term. The latter, as we all know, is original research, which is an issue you repeatedly fail to address - and, in fact, typically just ignore, or pretend has never been mentioned. So, too, do you simply ignore what has been pointed out over and over regarding neologisms; that it is not found in any standard dictionaries or encyclopedias, that it is not in common use, and that there is no "30 year limit" on neologisms - that the prequel article describes it as a neologism though it is over 50 years out. Please stop ignoring Talk: page discussion, and instead address it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We've already dealt with most of these phony objections from Jayjg (talk · contribs):

• We have a reference to "Jewish lobby" in a political dictionary. Most dictionaries are primarily words, not phrases, so we wouldn't expect to find it in Merriam-Webster.
• The Wikipedia "prequel" article is not a reliable source for the definition of neologism. All words were neologisms once; continued use over time makes them regular words. A neologism must be new. Thirty years after an appearance in Time Magazine and after numerous books on the subject, it's no longer a neologism. "Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary".[2]
• Finding references is not "original research". See WP:RS: "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found." That's not the case here. One could complain about synthesis of arguments from quotes, but that's not what's happening here. The cites to which Jayjg (talk · contribs) objects are being presented almost without comment, and thus, cannot violate WP:RS.
• The subject of the article is the Jewish lobby, which clearly exists. The article can also discuss the etymology of the term, as other articles do. Insisting that it's only about the "term" "Jewish lobby" in a linguistic sense is merely an futile excuse for censoring facts about the thing itself. --John Nagle (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

John, the phrase "phony objections from user:Jayjg" is an obvious violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically principle 2, "remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks". So too are claims of "censorship". You've already had to be sanctioned once for violating the principles of this case, I don't want it to happen again. Regarding your specific issues:

• We have a reference to "Jewish lobby" from a book by Walter John Raymond; he describes it as a "dictionary", but he's obviously written it himself, it's not a standard dictionary written by an editorial team. I could point out that we also have a definition from William Safire in his Safire's New Political Dictionary: The Definitive Guide to the New Language, which says In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, "the Jewish lobby,". Merriam-Webster itself defines all sorts of phrases, including "Iron Curtain", "hole in the wall", "animal rights", "right to life", "limousine liberal", "brass collar Democrat", etc.
• A neologism, as I've said before, is no longer new once it comes into common use. Wikipedia is not the only source that refers to "prequel" as a neologism; here's an article in the New York Times that does: [3] - admittedly, it refers to it as an "antique neologism".
• WP:NOR is quite clear about the use of primary sources to promote a view - any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Regarding primary sources, it states that the article should make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. You keep bringing primary sources to support your claims about the term being used by "Jewish groups" or in non-antisemitic ways. Find a reliable source that makes this argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Information?

I happen to be sitting with my personal copy of Edward Tivnan’s The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN 0671668285. I sadly note it is not referenced here, only referenced once by inference in the Israel lobby in the United States and dismissed on it’s talkpage. It doesn’t occur at all in the M&W article or it’s talk page, even though they ref it, I believe.

The ‘Jewish Lobby’ appears not to be a neologism, but exists more properly as the ‘Israel lobby’ and prior to that, the ‘Zionist Lobby’, based on the refs below. Whether the Jewish lobby exists, for issues specifically Jewish and non-Zionist/Israel, you might want to look at this [4]. It is quite revealing, very reliable source; do a crtl-f with 'Jewish' for starters.

Some things seem to be missing in these discussions. Really, no one else has Tivnan's book? I hope this helps.

In the Preface, p8, Tivnan is discussing how he started to write the book and his early research. He states:

’The answers were not as obvious as either the critics or fans of the Jewish lobby would have it. Even the title “Jewish Lobby,” I quickly discovered, needed some fine tuning; what was most at issue, as the lobbysts themselves insisted, was the influence of the “pro-Israel lobby.” Indeed, how the Jewish lobby had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,” became a focal point of my research.“

Throughout the introduction he discusses the internal debates and differences within Zionism itself. Stuff not in Wiki. He stresses the Zionist influence as opposed to Jewish influence in general. The opening para of the ‘Introduction’, p13, says.

’Before Israel existed as a state, it existed as a political lobby first in the capitals of Europe and then in Washington. Zionism was the romantic dream of a band of nineteenth-century European ideologues who often could agree on only one thing: that to achieve a “normal” life in an anti-Semitic world, Jews required a “Jewish state.” Zionist leaders worked tirelessly to convince the rest of the world to help them make that dream a reality. They met with hostility and skepticism. Foremost among their doubters were the Jewish leaders of America.’

In the first chapter, The Pro-Israel Lobby comes to Washington, Tivnan states (p39)

’Nineteen fifty-four became the year of the pro-Israel lobby. The American Zionist Council of Public Affairs^* (AZCPA) was formed with an annual budget of $50,000. In 1954, Israel needed all the lobbying help it could get to counter the growing annoyance toward the new state in the Eisenhower Administration.’ The ^* at the bottom says, ‘In 1959, Kenen’s lobbying operations would be renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, thus coming to terms with the reality of the largely non-Zionist nature of Jewish politics in the United States (and depriving the “Zionist conspiracy” theorists among the nation’s anti-Semites of an easy victim)'. The 'Kenen' refers to Isaiah L. Kenen. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver, the problem with the material is that it's really discussing the evolution of the Israel lobby in the United States, which is a different article, called Israel lobby in the United States. That's why you added it to the bottom of that article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you are right and that is why I put it elsewhere, but did you look at my specifically jewish ref in the 2nd para. I personally do not like the title Jewish lobby 'to allege undue Jewish influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance' as the lede states. I have several problems, as I am sure you do. Quickly, undue is a poor choice; disproportionate or inordinate (relative to demographics) would be far better and without the implied derogatory. I do not think Jewish influence is undue; it is in fact, deserved, but gone somewhat awry, specifically with the Israel lobby. The best name for the article is likely Jewish Influence in the US; since it is the 2nd largest Jewish country. From what I've seen on Wiki, that article already extists in many smaller articles and lists.

The following paras contain personal notes written in my early research days at Wiki, before I posted anything. They state my POV in this regard, please don't later beat me over the head with them; I am providing them in good faith and hope they help.

Basic population data (CIA and JVL) will show data will show Jewish %pop at about 1-2%, (just behind the Mormons, in rounded whole %, according to the CIA Factbook). JVL data also shows that America is the second largest ‘Jewish’ country in the world, in a dead heat with Israel at 6M. Is the influence of the Jewish People (JP) in America proportion, or even relatively proportional to the Mormons? Simply put, no. The JP in America have tremendous power and influence; they also have tremendous financial capability. This is a statement of reality and I want to end it quickly. Suffice it to say that the JP come by this level of influence honestly; they worked for it, they earned it, they have attained the American Dream, and thus, they deserve it. The JP’s influence and contributions also have been substantial throughout history and are very well documented.

The JP in America are just one example of a demographic minority which possesses inordinate professional, political and/or economic power relative to their demographic proportionality. They are not alone, there are other similar minorities around the world today, and likely throughout history. A few of these (of which I am personally aware) could include, the ethnic Chinese (also ethnic Indians) in several countries in SE Asia, ethnic Indians in Nepal, Coptic Christians in Egypt, various Christian groups in Lebanon and other Arab countries, and Armenians in Turkey and Iran. As I see it, these other groups also worked for it, earned it and deserve it.

From a generic point of view, these inordinately powerful demographic minorities, have also experienced some form of discrimination, as well as periods of racial/religious/ethnic riots, ethnic cleansing and genocide. If these events are provoked by envy/jealousy, then one could assume that they result from ‘anti-whatever-ism’. If, on the other hand, the causes are more correctly a question of might versus right, then you come to a moral conundrum. Where is the proper balance between might and right. This is particularly true in a democracy based on proportional representation. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver, a WP editor who finds relevant material without using google and who admits to owning and actually reading a book - shudder! Hopefully you read it on your Kindle at least. Seriously, that is an excellent source, discussing the early evolution of and relationsship of Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United States. Please bring any other similar sources you have. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I had to see what Kindle was, no, not so lucky. I am still several generations behind times and currently spread too thin. I have paper cuts, indexes that arent in blue and can not remember where I learned what I know, since I havent read these books in 15-20 years (or even not yet). Take a look at my page, maybe you'll understand. The ones I have of particular interest to ‘the lobby’ include:

• Cheryl A. Rubenberg. “Israel and the American National Interest, A critical Examination”. University of Illinois Press, 1986. ISBN 0252013301.
• Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht. “The Fate of the Jews, A people torn between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics”. Times Books, 1983. ISBN 0812910605.
• George Lenczowski. “American Presidents and the Middle East”. Duke University Press, 1990. ISBN 0822309726.
• George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball. “The Passionate Attachment, America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to Present”. W.W.Norton and Co., 1992. ISBN 0393029336.
• Paul Findley. “They Dare to Speak Out, People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby”. Lawrence Hill & Co, 1985. ISBN 0882081799. (autographed)
• Richard H. Curtiss. “Stealth PACs, How Israel’s American lobby seeks to control U.S. Middle East Policy”. American Education Trust, 1990. ISBN 0937165034.

Do you think those will help? Any ideas how to easily get the printed word from a book to an electronic page fast, if one doesn’t speed read or touch type? I will note a possible source [5] for these books, if they still have them. This [6] is also a good source for lobying on both sides over the years. Some will complain about it being an RS, but since they cover both sides of lobbying, generally issue-ly, esp in the ‘80’s their complaints are unjustified. Any help? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. We need more sources.

I'm reading J.J. Goldberg's "Jewish Power - Inside the Jewish Establishment" myself. Goldberg, who's the editor of The Forward, has a close-up view of the subject and the players. He writes about the Jewish lobby, routinely using that phrase throughout the book. There are sections on how the Jewish lobby lobbied on abortion, on school prayer, and other US domestic issues, as well as Israel-related issues. Lots of political detail; this is a book by a newspaper editor. More later, after I finish the book. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Making whole first paragraph NPOV This is excellent info, and like Raymond another source of discussing the term that shows a historical context of neutral uses. My quoting Raymond in first paragraph was more just my delight in finding an unassailable source discussing the term, not approval of both introductory paragraphs as they are. Just a quick draft of how I think an accurate NPOV ONE paragraph introduction should read:

Jewish lobby is a term used to describe organized Jewish activity, including especially lobbying, meant to influence politics, government, public policy and international relations.{REF:Walter John Raymond, Tivan, Walt/Mearsheimer page 188; etc} It also may be used to refer to Jewish presence in business, the media, academia and popular culture. {Need references} Antisemites also use the phrase as a code word to refer to their various conspiracy theories about Jews seeking to control world affairs.{Various of current References}

It would be followed by a section on the historical development of the phrase (if enough can be found), one on Uses and one on Anti-Semitic uses with actual examples. To me that would be a truly NPOV article. Carol Moore 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, you have to make the article say what the sources say. You can't just invent an introduction based on what you believe to be the "truth", then try to find sources to back it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol, you said elsewhere that you had not carefully read the last version I posted and which was immediately deleted twice. Please DO read it HERE when you get the chance. It has an intro paragraph similar to the one you envision (heavily based on Gdett's). It also uses unassailable RS discussing the term. If I hadn't been restricted from editing, I would modify my version to include the excellent Raymond info you found which I agree should be included. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, have you read the current intro? It already includes the Raymond info. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is written "for the benefit of readers". There should be nothing wrong with talk page editors doing some synth, based on RS, to come up with a readable para in the lede or anywhere else. Facts need the specific RS, but I doubt that every if, and or but needs its own RS. If that is the case, we end up with a jumbled, he said-she said, tit for tat mess that is often uncomprehensible and of no benefit readers. (except for other editors to know exactly where to insert their own pro/anti snippet. Don't we have some wiggle room to compose before someone jumps in and says 'tich tich WP:SYN, WP:OR'? We can do it to summarize, can't we, not 'advance a position'. You all are the experts, not me. I've just seen too much of it on I-P pages, where it looks more of a professional sport than gaming. (Well, slap my face). CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's something "wrong with talk page editors doing some synth, based on RS" - per WP:NOR - Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Split?

Could a split be in order here? It seems like this article is trying to do too many things at once, and we do already have articles on the various lobbies which support Jewish and/or Israeli interests. Would there be any objection to having an article purely documenting the racist conspiracy theories under the right title? For example, even if it were the case, say, that various people convinced themselves that Charles Rangel secretly ruled the world, I don't think it'd be NPOV to stick {{Discrimination sidebar}} on the Black Caucus article, as there really is a Black Causus that exists beyond some people's fevered imagination. In the same way, {{antisemitism}} is really glaring if that's not the topic of this article. -- Kendrick7^talk (who was unexpectedly gunned down by members of the Black Panthers the following day) 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that would just be a POV fork. Also, we're in mediation; this mess may get cleaned up. --John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a POV matter when we have sources clearly explaining the term is used in two disparate ways, and other sources which use it each way. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least three uses cited so far - synonym for the Israeli lobby in the US, alleged anti-Semitic slurs, and simply referring to Jewish lobbying groups not necessarily focused on Israel issues. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, I agree with Nagle that a split is not necessary at this time. (One of) The problems with the current page is that it goes out of its way to mix up the three uses Nagle refers to above, making an incomprehensible mess that reads as if the ONLY usage is as an anti-Semitic slur. I tried to organize the material to separate out the different uses; see HERE for the most recent version I contributed (that was deleted immediately). I did not remove any material, I just reorganized the material into the three categories. I think a good first step would be to get a version based on the one in the link I provided. If any of the categories become too large, then it would be possible to split them at that time. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, the article is already split. The Israel lobby in the United States article discusses the Israel lobby in the United States, and the Jewish lobby article discusses the term "Jewish lobby". The problem we are having (aside from constant attempts to insert original research), is that people keep trying to discuss the Israel lobby in the United States in this article. You can't have both articles discussing the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think you're missing the point. It seems to me that Kendrick is referring to the different uses of the term "Jewish Lobby", and not the different terms used to refer to the "Israel lobby"/"Jewish lobby". It is important that the different uses of the term "Jewish lobby" be included in this article since there is more than one. Can I ask why you appear to be opposed to organizing the article to clarify the different uses? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, (et. al.) Can you say what should be included specifically in 'Jewish lobby', versus and/or the 'Israel lobby'. I likely already have an idea of what you don't want. What is important for you here? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We largely agree here, Jajyg. At the same time I sympathize with any poor but notable souls out there who have to go have an "Oprah moment" because they inadvertently said "Jewish" instead of "Israeli" and the ADL showed up on their doorstep the next day. Then again, stirring up such controversy, kind of like Tigger and bouncing, is what the ADL does best, and I wouldn't want to diminish their opportunity for joy in anyway either. But I imagine there's got to be a marginally notable group of Jewish grandmothers out there who lobby for kosher foods in high schools or something, just maybe not at the Federal level, but still would be a "Jewish lobby" plain and simple; likewise that we don't call the Christian coalition the "Protestant lobby" or "Evangelical lobby" is just linguistic and cultural happenstance, and such terms wouldn't necessarily have a hostile overtone. So for the sake of taxonomy, and to end this edit war once and for all, would simply moving this to Jewish lobby (conspiracy theory) or something akin to that make everyone happy? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. The above might form the basis for a disambiguation page:

Jewish lobby can refer to:

1. The Israel lobby in the United States.
2. Jewish lobby (conspiracy theory)
3. Jewish lobbying efforts (non-Israel issues)

--John Nagle (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like positive progress to me. The initial disamgib can help make the organized writing easier, less nebulous. Based on the book by Feuerlicht, above, which is basically discussing this specific subject (need for and where the 'split' might be), my read is that the author would be very happy to see this disambig. I'd like to hear from Jayjg. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. Who divides the term in this way, aside from Wikipedia editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other editors likely see it as common sense, which I am sure can be linked WP:blue by somebody who knows more than I. Some might also see it as a logical initial division to give readers an idea of the range of various nebulous and disputed subjects that they have already heard/read, but have not seen discussed comprehensively in an encyclopedic manner. This is a very real subject, which is defined (or alleged) several ways and naturally leads to several different ‘definitions’, understandings, and proper and improper usages. It is a very touchy subject; it is also a subject that some just deny even exists, while others within one of it’s different elements boast of its power. It is therefore a very hard to subject to RS, I will give you that, but it is also what Wiki is supposed to do. It is the difference bewteen the spirit and the letter of NPOV.

At the same time, I believe that there is a large positive difference between original thinking on the part of collaborative talk page editors to arrive at an article ‘for the benefit of readers’ and WP:OR. That can be called building toward WP:consensus and I do believe you are somewhat outside of that, based on what I read here. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You really can't throw the original research policy out the window; if you cannot find any reliable sources that divide the information in this way, then you are advancing an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", per WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I hate to insert a comment (esp before myself) want to remind people again that Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view does emphasize this kind of subjectivity and making sure all major viewpoints are covered.Carol Moore 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, your continual misrepresentations of policy aren't really helpful; WP:NPOV does not trump WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I believe I first used the word "trump" to complain that WP:OR was being used to "trump" WP:NPOV. (Wonder if that link will work when I archive.) Obviously they are all supposed to work together, hopefully collaboratively. I certainly get that.Carol Moore 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

---

HEAR! HEAR! I'm all for splitting them now. I think two is enough, one for conspiracy theory, another for all other meanings. Three would just get too confusing, especially since lobbying for Israel and other issues often intertwined within same organizations.Carol Moore 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think I prefer three but will see what develops when other join in. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I too would want buy-in from Jayjg on this. This topic area is more-or-less his baby. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the obvious original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Ownership. No one "owns" an article. It's up to consensus of editors what goes into an article. His opinion should not be weighted more heavily than other editors who have been editing for a while - or are even brand new here if make informed comments.

Please see WP:Disambiguation since that is technically what we are talking about here. People can debate whether or not this article meets these criteria (as described at length in the article): Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. Carol who admits she has learned A LOT from Jayjg :-) Carol Moore 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What evidence do you have that this term is referring to 3 separate things? Is there any source for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories of use: The POV misused excerpt from p. 188 of Walt/Mearsheimer's book made me realize it's important to clarify categories of use to understand what actually IS being said about them.

Here's today's version:

• 1 - Neutral (or Non-antisemitic critical): Organized Jewish lobbying on any issue, both lobbying (i.e., broadly influencing)of either governmental or private organizations
• 2 - Neutral (or Non-antisemitic critical): Synonym for Israel lobby only, even though it may contain non-Jews with a variety of motivations (Note: Xian Zionist who support expansion of Israel to bring on Armageddon and think Christ will kill non-converted Jews are anti-Semites in my book.)
• 3 - Anti-Semitic: using phrase in any context where there is hostile language, false generalizations, unsupportable and extreme conspiracy theories

I think it is important to some how note that those who do legitimate historical or ethnic studies about any organized lobby group, including Jewish lobbies are not automatically bigots or promoting conspiracy theories. This includes real scholars and writers and journalists who find statistically or historically provable "undue" influence of any group on any area of activity. So I have a problem with both undue influence and related phrases used unless it is cleared they must be coupled with other evidences of antisemitism. Carol Moore 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree, totally, but have a feeling I may not fully understand some history here, no bother for me.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel lobby in the United Kingdom?

Is their enought for an article on the 'Israel lobby in the United Kingdom', a bit like 'Israel lobby in the United States'?

I have found this information whioch discusses such in the UK:

• The shadowy role of Labour Friends of Israel
• Isolated? Blame an ‘Israel lobby’
• Gagged while Gaza is crushed
• New push to smear ‘Israel lobby’ MPs
• UK urged to investigate influence of Zionist lobby
• New Israel lobby ‘not taking on Bicom’
• Greatest Threat To Democracy As 3rd Zionist Funding Scandal Exposed
• It Would Be Anti-Semitic To Investigate Labour Friends of Israel, Wouldn’t it?
• Letter from the Public - EXPOSED: Zionists Behind the recent Labour Cash Row
• British Academics and Professionals Demand Investigation of Israel Lobby in UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert C Prenic (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First I moved this to the end where supposed to be; also archiving soon. Second, do you want to talk about specifically about Jews and others lobbying for Israel, or do you want to include just Jews lobbying for other issues as well? In the first case, you should just go for it and disambiguate from Israel_lobby, using The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as an example. In the latter, you might get some of people here complaining about various content, which your review of talk page and edits will make clear. You also might considering doing an article on Israel Lobby in Europe since there is a lot of interesting activity going on over there and it avoids having to do it country by country.Carol Moore 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Many of those sources aren't too good. (Don't cite David Duke, for example.) Stick to mainstream journals, books, and academic studies.

We already have the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre article, which could use updating from reliable sources. BICOM was formed a few years back as sort of the UK version of AIPAC, and the article is a bit behind the times. See, for example, this Jerusalem Post article [7] and this article from Haaretz.[8]. There's also a redlink in British_Jews for Jewish Leadership Council which could be filled in. --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The move farther down the page is good and might have to be moved farther down again, given G-Dett's section below, before it gets it's own page; meaning in my mind, that it should not be archived (whatever) with a result from mediation, but eventually must move to the 'other side of the pond'. It is still a developing news story, not yet history; accumulation of sources should continue. I saw it first at Haaretz (and said ah ha), but agree w/ John, tho fact, many listed sources seem (I didn't look past status bar showing of link) overly tinted. That said, we are still discussing various shades of gray in the US; how we sift thru those colors may help in deciding how those colours, so to say, are sorted over there (over there... the Yanks are coming....). M&W should remain as a book article. (in the US, although is was published there; boy, this is a complex issue, as they say) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague. But I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed." (From his book The Arab Refugee Problem) Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. PR^talk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Accusation: "I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of 'gross historical fabrication') than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz." - PalestineRemembered. 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reality: David Duke was most famous for being the leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, while Schechtman and Katz are most famous for writing about the life of controversial Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky. It is more immoral to be a racist than to be a historian. Duke denies the Holocaust. Schechtman and Katz choose to write history from only one side. It is more immoral to deny history than to write a one-sided account of it. --GHcool (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

--G-Dett (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)==Outside comment (follow-up)== Several times in the last week, Jay has invoked my support for the distinction he makes between sources discussing the term and sources describing the lobby. As the edits he's made during this period range strike me as ill-advised, I will clarify my position. Hopefully, this will lead to a discussion that in turn clarifies what sources are appropriate for this subject.

The reason this article needs to be narrowly circumscribed is not that the term is a "neologism." In fact it doesn't appear to be one, and no one's produced any source describing it as such. Jay's shifting argument for "Jewish lobby" as a neologism is at any rate fundamentally flawed. First he said it's clearly a neologism because it's not in any dictionary or encyclopedia. When it was pointed out that the term is indeed in the Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms, Jay introduced a distinction between "standard" dictionaries and "specialist" ones. But the fact is, neither Jay's original criteria nor his revised one offers a meaningful way of determining whether something's a neologism, because dictionaries do regularly include neologisms. As far as encyclopedias are concerned, there are for myriad reasons tens of thousands of subjects covered by Wikipedia that aren't covered by traditional encyclopedias.

The real reason this article needs to be narrowly circumscribed is simply that the term is controversial. If this article sprawled into a general overview of the activities of AIPAC, the AJC and other related groups, all covered under the rubric of "the Jewish lobby," you'd have a major NPOV problem. There are a whole suite of Israel/Palestine related articles in which the same dynamic obtains: Pallywood, Allegations of Israeli apartheid, New Antisemitism, etc. Pallywood for a long time simply included any material about alleged Palestinian media manipulation, so long as it came from a source in which the word "Pallywood" appeared, resulting in an article that read like a propaganda pamphlet. Jewish lobby would do well not to follow the model of Pallywood. Oddly enough, I never had any luck enlisting Jay or Armon's support in reining in that article the way they aim to rein in this one; in fact for a long time they staunchly opposed any editors' efforts to do so.

What I find troubling about the current phase of editing is the whimsical inconsistency in actually applying this distinction between sources discussing use of the term and sources merely using the term. Look at the following statements, for example –

1. During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a ‘Jewish Lobby’ in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism.
2. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’.
3. The idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood...groups like USINAPAC and others do not grasp that there is no "Jewish lobby" that has its hold on Washington.
4. “We don’t talk about the Jewish lobby. We pretend it doesn’t exist. We pretend we are powerless." Goldberg thinks Jews should be honest about the political clout they have acquired since World War II, and in a talk Sunday night at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, he called for an open and frank discussion of the “Jewish lobby” as a positive force in the United States.

Jay and Armon are editing (and edit-warring) on the premise that quotations 1 and 3 above are discussing the term itself, while quotations 2 and 4 are merely using it. This makes absolutely no sense to me. All four are 'meta'-discussions about the use of the term, and all four are appropriate for this article.

The pattern one begins to detect is that any source arguing that the notion of a "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic and suggestive of undue influence will be categorized by Jay and Armon as "about the term itself," and therefore appropriate; whereas sources arguing that the notion and/or the term can be benign are categorized by Jay and Armon as merely using the term, and therefore inappropriate. This pattern is underscored by subtle changes in wording and odd editorial cropping. For example, Chip Berlet's argument that

During the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists spoke of a "Jewish Lobby" in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism...

is presented by our article as follows:

[Berlet writes that] during the first Gulf War, some anti-war activists used the phrase "Jewish lobby" "in ways that blended stereotyping with conspiracism."

My closing suggestion remains the same. The lead should introduce the term neutrally as opposed to argumentatively, and it should not rely on an op-ed for authoritative claims. Throughout the body of the article, any source that offers a 'meta'-discussion of the "Jewish lobby" – that is, not merely a discussion of the "Jewish lobby" but a discussion of the ifs, hows, whos, and whys of discussing the "Jewish lobby" – should be included where relevant. Common sense will do just fine here. Editors should not alternate semantic rigor with semantic laxity in order to include arguments they agree with and eliminate ones they don't.--G-Dett (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, G-, you have hit the nail on the head; I believe that it is similar to my[9]post above. Your use of 'current phase of editing' fits into the #Split, and disambig above. Things do need to be 'circumscribed', as you put it, before they get too far. Since you put it that way, I will note another [10], similarity, then put my tongue in cheek and say, Based on things I've seen, it is much less painful to circum-whatever early in a process than after something has developed too far. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above. --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

HEAR! HEAR!! Again. The mis-use of the page 188 Walt/Mearsheimer quote another example of defacto double standards on discussion and use. As long as we have only one article, I am going to make the change to that sentence I finally decided best fit in a consistent application. Of course we know what will happen to it.Carol Moore 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What is that Carol? What happened to it? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, first let's dispense with some obvious inaccuracies. You claim Jay's shifting argument for "Jewish lobby" as a neologism is at any rate fundamentally flawed. First he said it's clearly a neologism because it's not in any dictionary or encyclopedia. When it was pointed out that the term is indeed in the Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms, Jay introduced a distinction between "standard" dictionaries and "specialist" ones. Now, you first brought the reference from Raymond's book on the 19th of January:[11] In fact, I've been stating that it isn't found in any standard dictionaries for almost a year now:

• "It's not a neologism? I can't find it in any standard dictionaries."18:01, 30 March 2007
• ""Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then."02:52, 9 January 2008
• "A neologism ceases to be a neologism when it gains wide acceptance and becomes a part of common speech. And the way you know that has happened is when you find it in standard dictionaries or encyclopedias." 04:24, 16 January 2008

Perhaps you'd like to retract your claim about a "shifting argument" or a "revised standard", G-Dett? More fundamentally, even if one argues that the term is not a neologism, the cogent logic from that article still applies: An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). I understand your point about neologisms and standard dictionaries, but I think you also have to recognize that the the claim that a term is not a neologism simply because one has found an example of its use from the 1970s is exceedingly weak. Regarding the Pallywood article, I haven't edited it in over 5 1/2 months, and have no idea what is going on there; you haven't recently tried to "enlist [my] support" for anything regarding that article that I can recall, and in any event I have no time to look at it now. Regarding your four examples, the first and third were not ones I brought to begin with, and I modified the first to try to accommodate your concerns. I'm fine with removing both. Regarding the lead, it's pretty neutral now, but WP:LEAD also says any significant controversies should be mentioned, and the sources make clear that use of the term in antisemitic (or alleged antisemitic) ways is clearly a significant controversy regarding this term. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to retract the remark about a "revised" criteria. I read this comment from January 15, where you wrote that "the term 'Jewish lobby' is not found in any encyclopedia or dictionary, and is therefore a neologism," and then I noticed the modifier "standard" in subsequent posts of yours, and – not having researched your previous posts – came to the mistaken conclusion that this distinction was being newly introduced. Please accept my apologies.

Even if I had been right that your criteria was shifting, I ought not to have mentioned it, because it was a pointless dig (another apology here) and a red herring anyway. The important thing is that an absence (relative or absolute) of entries on a word or phrase in dictionaries and encyclopedias doesn't tell us a thing one way or the other about whether it's a neologism. Whether a word's a neologism and whether it merits a standard reference-work entry are absolutely independent variables. And all the more so if the "term" in question is simply a phrase with an adjective and a noun being used in their ordinary dictionary sense without any special semantic innovation. "Portable personal stereo" is not in any dictionary I can find, but "Walkman" is in everything from the OED to Webster's to Encarta. By your criteria, then, "portable personal stereo" is a neologism and "Walkman" is not – whereas, of course, the truth is exactly the opposite. Similarly, "jazz" was once a neologism, and "rap" and "hip hop" arguably still are – but "black music" was never a neologism, even if sources can be found arguing about what exactly it designated and whether it's a politically correct phrase.

And this is the rub, as I see it. "Jewish lobby" is a problematic phrase, rejected by many, and it has certainly become un-PC (even Philip Weiss says it "sticks in the throat," though he wishes it didn't and thinks it shouldn't). Indeed a much better case could be made for it as an archaism grown quaintly offensive (like "Negro") than a "neologism" awaiting broader acceptance. But this is all by the by, Jay. You and I concur that the article should be narrowly circumscribed, and basically for the same reason: dubious/controversial phrase, dubious/controversial concept. It seems to me that you're trying to justify this circumscription – and register the dubiousness of the phrase – by designating it a "neologism." This designation doesn't fit and isn't backed by any sources, but more importantly it is entirely unnecessary. "Neologism" is not some sort of by-word for "dubious concept." "Global warming" is probably a neologism but it certainly isn't a dubious concept. Ditto with "punctuated equilibrium" or "irrational exuberance". It is WP:NPOV (not WP:NEO) that gives us the proper rationale for limiting this article to 'meta'-discussion of the phrase or concept. This is exactly the same rationale (NPOV) for why we properly limit articles like New antisemitism and Allegations of Israeli apartheid to sources about such controversial concepts and analogies, rather than using these controversial concepts and analogies as rubrics for general encyclopedic coverage of a statistical rise in anti-Israel activism, say, or the hardships created by the West Bank barrier, respectively.

Now, given that you and I concur on this principle – that the article should be limited to sources discussing the meaning or appropriateness or offensiveness or benignity of the phrase or concept "Jewish lobby," or the history of its use, in short, what I'm calling 'meta' sources – I am puzzled by your application of it here, and that was the main point of my post. I do not understand how you can conclude that Aaronovitch's op-ed is "about the phrase itself" but that the piece on Goldberg merely uses it. It seems to me that you are alternately rigorous and slack in your judgments about whether a source is merely using the term or actually discussing it, and it seems to me that these alternations follow a predictable pattern, moreover, in which those sources who find talk of a "Jewish lobby" antisemitic are admitted to the article, while those who do not are not.--G-Dett (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, you keep bringing up sources that I haven't added to the article; I'm perfectly happy to remove them, and will do so now. What, in your view, would be good sources for the article aside from the ones already used, and how would you use them? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, thanks for being so accommodating, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I wasn't objecting to the inclusion of Aaronovitch, or to Berlet or even to the piece in Frontline. All of these are relevant (though it was more than a bit strange to build our very definition of the subject out of their passing comments in op-eds). I was objecting to your removal of Goldberg, who is highly relevant, and of Walt and Mearsheimer, who say something interesting about the term's use in Israel.--G-Dett (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Walt and Mearsheimer haven't been removed; on the contrary, they are quoted three times in this article. All of the sources in the article now discuss the term itself, unless there are any others you object to. Regarding Goldberg, I'm not sure why his article is any different from ten thousand other primary sources that use the term; can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Jay, I'm going to ask you to speak more straightforwardly. Walt & Mearsheimer were indeed removed, by you in fact, right here. Walt & Mearsheimer observed that "anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it.” You removed that material, claiming that it "does not discuss the term Jewish lobby," even though this is self-evidently false. Regarding the article about Goldberg (it's not "his article" – have you actually read it?), it doesn't resemble 10,000 primary sources because it isn't a primary source in the first place. It's a secondary source, discussing Goldberg's beliefs that there are good reasons to talk about the "Jewish lobby," and that the taboo against mentioning it is unhealthy and unjustified.--G-Dett (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I am speaking quite straightforwardly. Walt and Mearsheimer are quoted three times in this article. I at no time removed all of the material you refer to; I did, of course, remove the material that was unrelated to the "Jewish lobby" - for example "anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism" is about the Israel Lobby - W&M specifically state "Israel Lobby". So to with the last sentence, it's about the Israel lobby in the United States (about which we already have an article). I did accidentally cut-off a bit too much of the stuff that was actually about the Jewish lobby (though not all of it, of course), but I already admitted this to jgui days ago - I'm not sure why you're trying to re-hash long-settled and no longer relevant issues. As for the Goldberg article, you are correct in that he does briefly say that the "Jewish lobby" does good and that Jews should be proud of it. However, he doesn't actually define it, or discuss the term, which is what all the sources in this article do. What exactly is his "Jewish lobby"? If it is the same thing as the "Israel lobby in the United States", then it should be discussed in that article. And if not - well, we'll never know, since he says so little about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I did not realize you'd restored the relevant material from Walt & Mearsheimer. I'm completely puzzled by your posts regarding Goldberg. Addressing me, you write, "you are correct in that he does briefly say that the 'Jewish lobby' does good and that Jews should be proud of it." Why are you crediting me with being "correct" in saying something I didn't say? Is this some sort of Jedi mind trick? Or just a strawman argument? Whether Goldberg is made proud by the "Jewish lobby" is categorically irrelevant to our present discussion, which – remember? – is about why the piece on Goldberg is obviously a secondary source per our criteria. If you want to talk about the sources of Goldberg's pride and so on, fine, but don't ascribe this idle chatter to me, and don't substitute this idle chatter for what I actually did say, which, again, had to do with the status of the Goldberg piece as a secondary source. That, um, being our subject. Once again: "It's a secondary source, discussing Goldberg's beliefs that there are good reasons to talk about the "Jewish lobby," and that the taboo against mentioning it is unhealthy and unjustified." By the way, saying re Goldberg "What exactly is his "Jewish lobby"? ... well, we'll never know, since he says so little about it" is comparable to saying of Richard Dawkins that we don't know what "his 'biological evolution' " is, since he's written so little about it. Goldberg has written perhaps the book on the American "Jewish lobby." From the back cover: "Jewish Power is a serious look at American Jewry and a first-rate assessment of the successes and failures of the American Jewish lobby." I realize that the fact that he's a Zionist and a supporter of Israel who hates Walt and Mearsheimer's book creates problems for your argument that the term is antisemitic, but the above is the above.--G-Dett (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, since your comment Carol yet again restored the irrelevant material from Walt & Mearsheimer, so I've had to fix that; further comments below. Regarding Goldberg, the only source we currently have is that brief article - do you have access to his book? Finally, I haven't made any "argument that the term is antisemitic", so I'm not sure how Goldberg's views could be a problem for me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Goldberg book. If there's anything in particular you want to know about it, let me know. The brief article on him, however, is obviously a secondary source – i.e., a meta-source that discusses discussion of the "Jewish lobby." It presents moreover a unique and interesting point of view; while other sources are troubled by what they perceive to be antisemitic overtones in popular discussion of the subject, Goldberg thinks the taboo surrounding such discussion is unhealthy. The piece not only meets the current consensus criteria for inclusion, but will significantly improve the article when added.--G-Dett (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me congratulate G-Dett on his/her magnificent argumentation! It's good to learn from the masters of NPOV argumentation, so that one doesn't just learn bad habits of argumentation which one is then tempted to bring to other articles and use on the less skilled... :-) Carol Moore 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You seem to be making a Loki's Wager, Jayjg, i.e. No one knows where the Jewish Lobby ends or where it begins and thus we're doomed to go around in circles on this forever. And amid the resulting confusion you're bringing in WP:NEO to further muddy the waters. This is hardly a term someone made up on their blog last week, and that it has enough baggage for the {{antisemitism}} template is clear demonstration that it's hardly a newborn. It meanwhile has a perfectly obvious meaning in plain English (it's a lobby which is Jewish), which is why I'd be OK with a split, per WP:COMMON, if it'll end the squabbling here. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have such strong views, why don't you add yourself to the mediation? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I really don't care much at all; I wouldn't even be here if this dispute hadn't been brought up in a few other places. I do understand, were wikipedia like poker, that the pit boss has been called over, and whatever will happen will happen. But since the play is dead anyway, I'm just chiming in. I've seen you run this same bluff a dozen times, and wish for once, for the love of Jiminy, you'd just put your cards on the table. You'd be surprised how often your hand is good. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A new quote about the term

Here's a new quote about the term "Jewish lobby": "As such, just as other communities and interest groups have lobbies, there is a ‘Jewish lobby’ – an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community."[12]. That's from "The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby", by the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission, Inc. (Australia). It's "about the term", not just using the term. The term "Jewish lobby" appears several times in the body of the article and in the title. The source is a mainstream Jewish organization. Any objections to using that quote? --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a definition, of sorts. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving Around references / deleting unbalanced quotes in references??

Started moving references to relevant areas, not reverting them. But decided better report here before continued.

Also, let's think about deleting some of those long quotes in references which give an unbalanced look to the article. Shouldn't they be in text or not there or at least shorter? Also, if John Nagle thinks the BB ADL reference belongs somewhere better, or as a quote, go for it. It seems there's another quote we've used that also could be used on first sentence. Can't remember off hand - will look later.Carol Moore 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Note to all - current mediation

This article is currently the subject of a recently-accepted mediation. Rather than trying to pre-empt that mediation, why not work with it instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to me that I've read somewhere that it can take a while for mediators to come in and do whatever it is they do. Meanwhile we do the best we can to argue our arguments and make changes we think are appropriate and see which ones survive. I'm happy that some did, making the article a little more NPOV one day at a time. :-)Carol Moore 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I can think of a mediation case going on right now which has been dragged out for weeks, if not months. Not one important scrap of what it was about has ever been defended or discussed.

I cannot see mediators demanding that this kind of wiki-lawyering behavior stop, because that's not the function of a mediator. I predict that some of these mediations will never do anything other than reward time-wasting. PR^talk 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a try, if we get a mediator. So far, no one from Mediation has signed up for the job. --John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Noncontroversial notes

• The phrase "In particular case of the United States" went in recently and needs grammar cleanup. --John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything's controversial! :-) Sounds like a POV attempt to emphasize that only in the US can you use "Jewish lobby" in non antisemitic way. Should be reverted to more NPOV "In the United States". Carol Moore 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, would it be possible for you to assume good faith for once? The person who made the edit does not speak English as a first language, and his stated reason for making the change appears to be the exact opposite of your pejorative supposition. Anyway, I've fixed the wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the (future) Split

Evidence for Jewish vs Israel lobby: Simple site search of WRMEA; 1646 hits on Israel lobby, 1221 hits on Jewish lobby, occurring within the same article (=1.35:1). Try again, 656 hits on "Israel lobby" and 81 hits on “Jewish lobby” (=8:1), There seems to be a real distinction here. A further search of "Jewish lobby" AND "Israel lobby" revealed 28 hits; this is where I suggest interested editors look for information for this ambiguous situation. Trust me, there are many there. I particularly find these informative.

This one [13] in a 1987 review of the book ‘The Lobby’;

As any recounting of the Arab-Israeli dispute and description of AIPAC's slavish support of Israel normally arouses a maelstrom of emotion, Tivnan's above-the-fray detachment excites admiration. This is replaced by annoyance, however, when he rather ungenerously dismisses other writings on the Jewish lobby as "not worth reading."

Or this one [14], by Paul Findley

AIPAC has publicly claimed full credit for a number of factors that contributed to my 1982 defeat. Thomas A. Dine, then executive director, summed up: “We beat the odds and defeated Findley.” He said AIPAC brought 150 students from the University of Illinois into my central Illinois district to “pound the pavements and knock on doors.” He added, “This is a case where the Jewish lobby made a difference.” By Jewish lobby, he clearly referred to AIPAC, the only organization registered as a lobby for Israeli interests.

This one [15]

The BJP-RSS-VHP leaders in the U.S. make no secret of their admiration for the influential position enjoyed by Israel's supporters in the United States and their desires to make use of it. "The Jewish lobby has a great understanding of the political process in the U.S.," according to Tiwari, of the Denver-based FISI, which supports the radical groups in India. "They have been very favorable to India's interests." FISI evolved from the Indians for Democracy Movement (IDM), formed in response to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's emergency rule in 1975. Tiwari told the Washington Report that "our efforts at lobbying are new and weak so we seek guidance from the Jewish lobby and they have helped us whenever they can."

This is a good one [16], but probably better if the whole article is read:

There was Israeli and Jewish lobbying on both sides of the issues being discussed at the Wye Plantation in October. Mark Indor, chairman of Israel’s Terror Victims Association and four other members set up camp with leaders of Jewish settler groups to, in Indor’s words, keep “on the tail” of Netanyahu to stand up to U.S. and Palestinian pressure. Netanyahu ignored U.S. requests to avoid contacts with pressure groups and met with the group at Wye.’ Nor were all the Jewish lobbyists at the peace negotiations hawks. On the other side was a publication handed out by founder and policy director Mark Rosenblum of Americans for Peace Now to reporters who went into the White House for the opening of the talks before participants reassembled at Wye Plantation. Americans for Peace Now spokesman Lewis Roth said his group’s publication, which was issued in July, shows there are Israelis who have been personally affected by terrorism and as a result support the peace negotiations instead of opposing them…..

There also is Israeli lobbying against Jewish lobbying. Yossi Beilin, a likely foreign minister in any future Israeli Labor Party government, said in an Aug. 4 interview in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s Washington, DC lobby, often serves as an obstacle to U.S.-Israeli relations. In a follow-up Aug. 6 interview with Defense News, a U.S. publication, Beilin said, “AIPAC sees itself as the super-embassy of Israel, and on many issues AIPAC doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the government of Israel.”

He explained, “It’s one thing to work on Capitol Hill. It’s another thing to work the White House, State Department, Department of Defense and other agencies, which in my mind can be construed as meddling.” As an example he cited the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, passed by Congress but vetoed by President Clinton. “These matters often are best resolved through quiet government-to-government channels...rather than head-to-head confrontation with the White House,” Beilin told Defense News.

This one [17] from a survivor of the USS Liberty.

What exactly is AIPAC? Sometimes it is called the Jewish Lobby. This is wrong. It was formed to advance the interests of Israel. Many of its supporters are Jews but some of its most fanatical supporters are Christian fundamentalists who believe that at the end of time, just before the second coming of Christ, the Jews will go back to their homeland. Any attempt to oppose this or, indeed, to try to block anything Israel wants to do is an attempt to frustrate the will of God. Of course, these people are not particularly philo-Semitic. They believe that 144,000 of these Jews (yes; that’s 12 x 12,000 of the tribes of Israel) will be converted to Christianity and will be saved. The rest of the Jews will be consigned to hell along with me and probably at least some of those reading these lines.

This one [18]

After Palestinian independence is established in the occupied territories, if it is, and Yasser Arafat or a possible hard-line successor is in place, perhaps many of the components of the Zionist Lobby will instead become a Jewish lobby, losing some of its most abrasive aspects in U.S. politics. Such a JLobby may learn to work without the strong financial carrots and sticks that members of Congress find so terrifying, and budding politicians at the state level find so tempting.

That’s just in the first ten hits and there is a lot of discussion there too. There are differences; they are all mixed up to some degree. That is why there should be continuing open and frank discussion of an initial disambig (Split) of these ambiguities

Concerning Washington Report’s viability as a reliable source, I note that every issue discusses both sides of lobbying at that time. In the early issues it was called Lobbying Activities; since then it has had two sections, one entitled ‘Arab American Activism’ the other ‘Jews and Israel’ I also provide the following reply to a letter to the editor entitled ‘Why Do You Pull Your Punches About the Lobby?’ [19]. The Editors replied:

One correction: we're broke because of too many, not too few, subscriptions. That's why we're forced to increase our rates for 1992. As for your suggestion that Arab governments carry your message, it's our impression that spokespersons for Arab countries have been saying what you advocate for many years, and yet few Americans have paid any attention. That's why we think it's important for Americans to speak frankly to Americans about the matter, although perhaps in somewhat less all-encompassing terms than those you have chosen. It's our impression that what we do has been quite effective, perhaps crucial, in helping to build that 86 percent backing for an even-handed US policy equally concerned about security for Israelis, justice for Palestinians, and tranquility for the rest of the world. If you would prefer to wait for all of those Arab spokesmen to get through to the American public, it's your decision. As truly old "old Middle East hands, we decided we just can't wait any longer. Good luck and maybe you can get "all of the spokesmen who represent the Arab countries " each to subscribe to the Washington Report. So far we haven 't had much luck with them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualObserver'48 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the WRMEA is a fairly biased source in these matters, I don't see why you keep insisting that we should do our own synthesis and analysis of primary sources; as you know, that is forbidden by policy. I'm also not sure why you keep trying to pre-empt the mediation that will be starting soon. Please add yourself to the mediation page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay, whether I join mediation depends on whether I am accepted into mediation. My first post to this talk page post-dates the acceptance of the mediation and no additional editors have joined since, although you’ve invited others, (that is up to them). I would not want to be considered as interfering, which has happened in a recent case. That wouldn’t be cool, so to speak. I would likely be willing to join the mediation if my recently added sources, and the subject of “the split”, are already considered to be included in the mediation. Also, since I just included these yesterday, I also wonder if they are included, and whether or not that will complicate already ponderous questions. I am aware that some mediation with you might be required concerning WRMEA; that is why I added the last paragraph to my post. This question is directed to other involved editors as well. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in the article and are willing to enter into good-faith negotiation regarding it, then I don't see any real issues with joining. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job of collecting quotes relevant to a split, though not sure if they support double or triple split. At this point I'd say get consensus among those wanting a split if it should be 2 or 3 per above discussion and then go for it! Or maybe ask OK from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement or our current watchful eye?

Also, if in your travels you ran into any really good quotes on definition of Israel lobby in the United Kingdom you could post them on Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom since main editor's less than perfect quotes being ravaged by an anon IP and someone else we all hold near and dear and article threatened with deletion. I'm just too busy to deal with for a couple days since actually have articles on completely different topics to work on, including brand new one done almost ready to go up!Carol Moore 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

{talk}

Carol, your inclusion, above, of Moral and political points of view is excellent; it also happens to very specifically topical for the current discussion of splitting and how best to accomplish this. The lede says: “On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.”

Well, what do we have here; we have religion, Judaism, in the term ‘Jewish’ used as a modifier for something intrinsically political, i.e. lobby. Concurrently we have the historical, religious- and faith-based support for Israel. This now includes specific adherents of a follow-on religion, while within Judaism itself, there have been/are varying balances of faith and morals which lead to varying degrees of support for Israel and directly to support for Zionism.

We also have Israel (both religious and political) used as a modifier for something intrinsically political, i.e. lobby. This is more specifically related to the degree of support for Israel and Zionism, or degree of Zion-ishness if I may. (But we have the moving target of defining what zionism is [20], which is off-topic.)

In my experience (and sources), editors can rightfully claim that there are things that are specifically Jewish (or Judaic) related, that are not related to Israel; these should probably be disambiguated into the Jewish lobby, whether they are political or cultural. Topics dealing with Jewish (and varying degrees of Judaic) and non-Jewish political or cultural support for Zionism and/or Israel should be discussed in Israel lobby in the United States. I am open to suggestions from all, but am concerned that some are inclined to keep it necessarily ambiguous, confused and insufficiently discussed to provide usable knowledge for the reader.

With a properly weighed NPOV, I can also see the likely need in to have John’s suggested Jewish lobby (conspiracy theory) for topics that are out there, but are highly contentious (mediated) and/or unable to be sufficiently RS’d. That sounds like a reasonable, common sense, arrangement for an introductory (call it what you want) page which uses thinking, not OR. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the "NPOV tutorial" is not policy; it's rarely read, and much of it was added by various editors without any consultation. It certainly can't be used to ignore WP:NOR; in particular primary sources cannot be used to define things, or decide what "proper weight" is for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CAROL'S RESPONSE TO CASUALOBSERVER DIRECTLY ABOVE THAT WAS MOVED: Well argued rationale for splitting it in two. Considering the article was locked when I tried to archive, I think giving it a name change ALSO might be locked right now. Are we getting towards a consensus on a two way split when it becomes possible, be it now or after mediation?? Carol Moore 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No, of course we aren't Carol. Please stop trying to pre-empt mediation; recall the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors reminded where you are specifically reminded to use dispute resolution. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, my post was moved from original place, so I had to make it clear what I was responding to. Whether to split the article was not a topic for mediation. However, I think I made it clear above that this might be something that we'd be blocked from doing anyway, even if there WAS a consensus. This is my first time in mediation and nothing really has been said about how it's going to work, so pardon my confusion. Also, maybe comments below could have own section since not about a split?Carol Moore 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, it was quite obvious from both the indentation of the comments and the date on the signatures, your response was directed to CasualObserver48. Again, it would be helpful if you were to assume good faith for once. As for topics for mediation, we can certainly add items if they are relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I stated a fact not an opinion about that fact, so AGF on my part :-) Second, I just looked at Wikipedia:TALK#Technical_and_format_standards and may be more confused than before. I thought all comments were supposed to come at end of each section and getting annoyed at people interrupting in general. Then see there's something called "threading." Though the link isn't specific to Wikipedia so it doesn't explain it well. It mentions Colons but not if they are supposed to just go on ad finitim or you just go back to start after 3 or 4 colons - which is what I always thought. And whether you can interrupt a thread as people do here a lot not mentioned. So if I had had an opinion on it being bad manners it would be based on confusion about what is written in that link above.Carol Moore 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The point is, you continually assume bad faith about those with whom you disagree, stating or insinuating that they are up to some sort of nefarious deeds, whether it be in the article or on the Talk: page. Please desist from this in the future, it poisons the Talk page and makes any sort of compromise impossible. Jayjg ^(talk)

Just explain to me why wikipedia has WP:POV and WP:Gaming the system and WP:Idontlikeit and how to properly use them so you are not WP:AGF.Carol Moore 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is an example for consideration. It seems entirely Jewish in character, and reported in such terms in the NYT. In May’85 Pres. Reagan [21] visits a (West) German cemetery in Bitburg containing some SS graves; it caused a furor at the time.

A WRMEA article by Robert Hazo in the August issue, [22] states a different review of events related to the visit;

On the assumption that failure is often more revealing than success, it may be useful in evaluating the clout of the lobby to examine first those occasions when it did not prevail in imposing its will on the executive or legislative branches of the federal government. There are not many. The Bithurg [sic] incident is the most recent. Despite a vigorous and protracted campaign against President Reagan's symbolic visit, despite timely help from the American Legion and other groups, despite overwhelmingly disapproving votes of 83-0 and 390-26 in the Senate and the House (which, moreover, did not reflect the even split in public opinion polls), the President, after including in his itinerary a few mollifying gestures, made the visit and apparently did not emerge any the worse for it.

The Presidents Conference ‘is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch’. The Israel lobby (AIPAC) side is the one ‘which directly lobbies the legislative branch of the U.S. Government’. Does that ‘Jewish’ part of the lobby alone have the muscle to win such lopsided votes? There seem to be likely symbiotic relationships between the ‘Jewish’ side and the ‘Israel’ side of the lobby, based on similar roots, and, for example, usage of existing organizations/infrastructure for similar ends.

It may be indicative of a ‘why fight the lobby’ or ‘why bother’ attitude on Capitol Hill concerning no-loose/big-win issues of small national significance, but with considerable advantages for donations and votes amongst our fine elected officials. It also may be avoidance on their part of the less-savory (AIPAC/Israel) side of the lobby which actively campaigns against elected officials with other opinions. For whatever reason, it is an example and evidence of significant power within the workings of representative government that is (way) out of proportion to the population that this ethnic/religious demographic or interest group represents.

All the above is or can be book-sourced; a fair NPOV question is where do these types of things go. Yes, part definitely belongs in the Jewish lobby article; some definitely goes in the Israel lobby article, and in all fairness, certain aspects would be best placed in the Jewish lobby (conspiracy theory). CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver48, in addition to the issues raised regarding WP:NOR, it might be helpful if you reviewed Wikipedia:Content forking. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving tonight (ESTime)

FYI. Since it's getting real long and I think mediators smart enough to find the archives :-) Carol Moore 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I note that after much mention and a failed attempt jayjg who is an admin did so.Carol Moore 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Aaronovitch

For those of you who like to delete cited references, please preview the page and check for citation errors. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Cesarani Quote

I still have a problem with this: David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian on Richard Dawkins use of the term, states that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo." (REF:Cesarani, David. "Exerting influence", The Guardian, October 8, 2007.) It is highly speculative personal opinion and prejudicial and POV. Anyone else agree it should be deleted??Carol Moore 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I have no particular problem with the thought being expressed, the problem is how it is included in the article, in this case with a lot of unrelated stuff because of the perceived need to cover one’s butt with RS BS. I do not know how Richard Dawkins used the term “Jewish lobby”, was it in talking about/related to genetics or Israel? I believe that M&W purposefully and professionally avoided the whole issue. It was, and is required to maintain credibility. It is a very touchy factual subject, but particularly so with those who have a chip on their shoulder. We have the info box to remind/warn editors of that fact.

It can/should be included as a ‘sourced sentiment’ before the obligatory inclusion of POV’d sources which indicate and allege to prove that it is automatically anti-Jewish on its face. For example: Some feel (ref to David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian) that since “Mearsheimer and Walt studiously avoided the term in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo”, others are chided to do the same (or, others should be similarly aware and educated before they open their trap, whatever) before using the term ‘Jewish lobby’. What did we loose from the usage of the quote?- lets see; we lost David Cesarani, commenting, The Guardian, Richard Dawkins and misc words; or probably better, why not: Some state that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide [others] for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo." (ref to David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian). Far better, that uses the whole quote NPOVly, and we end up with less RS BS. PS, Carol, I have my eye on UK stuff, but is unlikely in my 20 y.o. US books. :-) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than my complaint above and definitely violates Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view and gives Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight to a personal speculation.

That is because the whole paragraph is already unbalanced by knocking out the full sentence where W&M say: In fact, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it. (p 188 the book) On the other hand because WIKIpedia demands balance, I can stick it in there.

So in truth they probably think Dawkins had a perfect right to babble about the Jewish lobby! Which is the opposite of what Cesarani says. (Additionally IMHO it is a a false assumption because either a) they may have a laissez-faire mindset as how OTHERS use the term or b) they may be covering their academic butts.) Carol Moore 08:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, it's hard to understand how one quote from Cesarani violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight; on the contrary, if anything inserting a fourth quote from M&W, when we have at most two from any other source (and almost always just one) is what violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. In addition, the bizarre claim that the Cesarani quote violates Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view can only be explained by a seriously deficient understand of that section - perhaps you can explain further why you think this section is being violated. WP:V, on the other hand, specifically states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Cesarani is a respected academic whose area of expertise is quite relevant to this subject. For someone who has so liberally invoked WP:IDONTLIKEIT on this page, it is rather astonishing that you would attempt to delete material solely for the reason that you don't like it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When WP:V says "truth" it doesn't mean we knowingly put in falsehoods to promote a POV viewpoint, it means we quote people as saying things that aren't true in the context of the story. UFO articles will have all sorts of verifiable statements about people saying they saw UFOs. Doesn't mean UFOs exist. The article about Arthur Koestler could quote all the conspiracy theorists who think the Mossad killed him, but that doesn't mean it did. (Wonder if Cesarani put that in his bio of Koestler?) An article about Cesarani that included criticisms of his having speculative opinions might include the one in this article, but that doesn't make his speculation true. So it is clear that WP:V sentence needs clarification, as people have discussed in WP:V talk.

Again, if the Cesarani quote goes in that speculatively MIS-interprets W&M all sorts of NPOV rules make it necessary to put in some variation on what M&W actually said to counter the falsehood. If Cesarani is taken out, then it is not necessary. The best thing is just to take out Cesarani. Plus it will end problems of spelling his name right :-)Carol Moore 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, again, you have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Your opinion that Cesarani has misinterpreted M&W is both incorrect and original research. Cesarani has stated his opinion about Dawkins use of the term "Jewish lobby". Cesarani is a reliable source, whose area of expertise is relevant - and, in fact, his opinion is likely quite true, though that's neither here nor there. We properly attribute Cesarani's opinion to him. If you want to find something to rebut Cesarani's opinion, then find a reliable source that does. Your opinion about Cesarani doesn't count as a reliable source, and removing Cesarani's view is a violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mearsheimer and Walt (again)

Carol has again inserted the following statement:

However, Walt and Mearsheimer clearly state that even though Jewish groups themselves use the phrase "Jewish Lobby," others run "the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism," and opine, "In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it."

To begin with, it repeats material at the beginning of the paragraph. Next, it is inaccurate - M&W do not state that "even though Jewish groups" do anything, they don't mention "Jewish groups". Next, as has been pointed out multiple times, M&W are not referring to the "Jewish lobby" when they discuss "being charged with anti-Semitism" - in fact, they say "anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism". Did you see the highlighted part? Israel lobby. There is an article about the Israel lobby in the United States - this is not it. Please make sure your edits abide by policy, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Carol, it looks to me like it fits perfectly well within the context of the current article at the current time.

Jay, if there were any serious discussion concerning 'The Split', then it would be easier to decide what might go where. I realize that the split may or may not be in the mediation, but I take their current level of mediation as being only that of meditation. Possibly, they feel that some movement on discussion of this and other substantive discussive topics is showing progress without any effort on their part. This is wise and helps them in their work; the more we resolve here; the less they must do. I also suspect that there is some hesitation among mediators concerning who might draw this 'short straw'. So let us procede with some basics before we have to fight the devil in the details. It might make make our endeavor as editors for Wikipedia easier, while causing more highly POV'd editors on both sides some personal discomfort, reflection and insight to other POVs. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a potential split, please see the comments in the section above regarding WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Content forking. Regarding "it fits perfectly well within the context of the current article at the current time", please address the rather obvious point that they specifically refer to the Israel lobby, not the "Jewish lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked at those again; I never mentioned a 'fork'. What I was talking about was a 'split', and a 'disambig' to provide readers with an understanding of an ambiguous subject and terms for it and how it might be best described for the sake of the readers. May I suggest you re-read my earlier comments concerning 'Moral and political points of view' from the NPOV tutorial and original thinking. I see no instance of 'Israel lobby' in the material Carol reinstated, but am aware that they wrote a book on that specific subject, in which they scrupulously avoided the term 'Jewish lobby' for specific, stated reasons. I don't think they ever noted whether it exists or not, but they certainly avoided using the term. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tutorial is not policy, and WP:NOR does not allow us to advance the argument that "Jewish lobby" is used in three distinct ways; we must find reliable sources that make that claim or distinction. Regarding Carol's insertion, that's right, it didn't use the term "Israel lobby", but that's because Carol excised it from M&W's original quote, which was "In fact, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism." Carol took that sentence, removed the term "Israel lobby", and then pretended M&W were talking about the term "Jewish lobby". Frankly, it's a shameful abuse of that source. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(Hopefully using right thread formatting?) If the Cesanari quote goes in that speculatively MIS-interprets W$M all sorts of NPOV rules make it necessary to put in some variation on what M&W actually said. If it is taken out, then it is not necessary. I think it is clear that in this sentence they are clearing equating "Jewish lobby" and "Israel Lobby" though I recognize others might interpret it differently. The best thing is just to take out Cesanari.Carol Moore 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, again, you have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Your opinion that Cesarani has misinterpreted M&W is both incorrect and original research. Cesarani has stated his opinion about Dawkins use of the term "Jewish lobby". Cesarani is a reliable source, whose area of expertise is relevant - and, in fact, his opinion is likely quite true, though that's neither here nor there. We properly attribute Cesarani's opinion to him. If you want to find something to rebut Cesarani's opinion, then find a reliable source that does. Your opinion about Cesarani doesn't count as a reliable source, what M&W actually said is already in the article, and removing Cesarani's view is a violation of WP:NPOV. Regarding M&W, they were quite explicitly talking about the "Israel lobby", not "Jewish lobby", and removing Cesarani's view will not "fix" that in any way. WP:NPOV is not a game where you can insert original research, then offer to take it out again only if, in return, some other material you don't like for entirely non-policy based reasons is removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if you are happy with W&M's opinion, then we can drop Cesarani discussion. Though I agree I could find equally untrue statements made by other notable people that were WP:V to counter Cesarani. Just one more little lesson I'll put in my bonnet.

I just revised W&M to have actual p. 188 quotation which is better than year older one. Plus put in a more relevant intro, but that's work in progress. Carol Moore 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Issues of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE

I've moved the following statements to the Talk: page for further discussion:

Walt and Mearsheimer comment more fully on use of the term Jewish Lobby":

No discussion of the lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. No discussion of how the lobby operates would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israelis actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents are hardly bashful about describing their influence and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s "Jewish Lobby".

To begin with, it's an obvious abuse of WP:UNDUE; the article already quotes Mearsheimer and Walt three separate times, far more than any other writers. In addition, the material itself is a duplicate of the material at the beginning of the paragraph, which already uses this source and quotes M&W on it. It was all the more abusive of WP:UNDUE because the quote itself, at 116 words, is at least three times as long as any other quote used in the article, and on top of that was given special attention via the blockquote and italics. I'm surprised it wasn't put in bold as well! In fact, people loved that quote so much that they not only used it twice in the same paragraph, but actually quoted the first line twice in the same blockquote!

In addition, M&W are obviously not "comment[ing] more fully on the use of the term Jewish lobby"; as is clear, much of the quote itself has nothing to do with the "Jewish lobby" at all. The M&W paper is about the Israel lobby in the United States; as you might have noticed, there is already an article on that topic, which quotes M&W extensively. The entire section No discussion of how the lobby operates would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israelis actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle Eastern policy stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism is all about the Israel lobby, and M&W's claim that anyone who criticizes Israel, or "says there is an Israel lobby", risks being charged with anti-Semitism. Note, those are M&W's own words, anyone who says there is an Israel lobby, not "Jewish lobby. Please try to ensure that future edits don't re-insert this policy violating material again, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that what is UNDUE is to quote David Cesarani stating "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo" and deleting what it is more likely they would say "Dawkins is being attacked for using the phrase Jewish lobby, even though Jews involved involved in Israel lobbying use it all the time." To say that wikipedia puts more weight on DUBIOUS SPECULATION about what wikipedia says as opposed to what they DO say is UNDUE POV to an extreme. So I'm going to put it back. We wouldn't need WHOLE quote repeated but Jayjg doesn't like a partial quote, and insists on keeping Cesarani.

"Also I have decided to make a CHART of how JAYJG defines WP:OR etc when he's criticizing others views as opposed to when he is defending his own. I'm sure it will help us all understand just what it is that Jayjg consistently wants to end the obvious confusion on our part. I'll put it up as a permanent page off my user page, I guess. (Jayjg may correct an inaccuracies of course!!) Or maybe here Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge. Or maybe it is appropriate for the mediation? Then we'll all be able to proceed more rationally on Jewish Lobby and Israel Lobby in United Kingdom.Carol Moore 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Huh? A brief quote from a respected academic in a related field is "UNDUE"? Please quote the sentences of policy to which this applies. Also, applying policy is not a game, where one inserts policy-violating material and then bargains to remove it in return for various favors. I'll be removing the policy violating material again. Finally, please comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Shorter and thereby less "undue" use of relevant sentence - It makes the point of WHAT they discuss about Jewish Lobby IN CONTEXT clearer, and of course illustrates probable irrelevance of Cesarani quote. Shall we replace it? I think so.

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, discuss "Jewish Lobby" when they note that "anyone who says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’". Walt comments, however, that he and co-author Mearsheimer "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, they state "Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements." David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian on Richard Dawkins use of the term, states that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."

Carol Moore 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's better, but, of course, it violates WP:NPOV (M&W don't "note" anything, they may assert it). More importantly, it still contains material that is only about the Israel lobby. I'll give you a clue as to how you'll know which material refers to the Israel lobby; it's the stuff that uses the term Israel lobby: in this case, "anyone who says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism." Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all it seems to me deleting what W&M have to say about a topic while featuring a lesser known figure's mere speculation about what they have to say is WP:Undue whose first sentence reads NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. What is NPOV is to allow this speculation without quoting W&M. Thus I have made relevant change. Carol Moore 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

People who haven't used the term?

I thought this edit[23] made a lot of sense. I'm not sure I see the relevance of using those sources here; it's rather ho-hum and quote-miner-ish. Actually reminds me of the punchline to a Cheers episode, but I digress. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. I'm going to add an alphabetical list of people who aren't Jewish to the Judaism article. I'm up to Henry Aaron. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for List of people who aren't Jewish and have never been in my kitchen but I don't know for sourcing. I haven't looked too closely at the sources in play here, but, since I started (and somewhat followed the development of) the article on Carter's book,[24] I can see how this might be used as some sort of reverse rhetoric, i.e. person X doesn't use the phrase Jewish Lobby really means person X is actually an anti-Semite, but is just too clever to use the proper code words -- however, it's entirely tangential to our article per WP:NOT#INFO. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the edit acceptable if the references can be moved to the Israel lobby in the United States talk page and if someone can determine what they did say concerning the “Zionist lobby”, or whatever, which certainly goes on that page, rather than have references which document what they didn't say. Queen Noor and Jimmy Carter are also astute and sensitive enough to know that the ADL is watching their every word, and it is a term to avoid. Personally I don't consider the ADL a reliable source on this particular subject, but it's nice to know what they think. What did the ADL say about her use of the term “Zionist lobby”?- that might elucidate the subject of what goes in, what goes elsewhere. It might also indicate those areas possibly covered in the suggested (conspiracy theory). CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the funny (peculiar) irony is that what really seems to be going on is that the ADL et al want to say that Carter and Queen N are anti-Semites, but are astute enough to avoid using the term directly. It's a case of dueling code words. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We have very few sources that actually discuss the term, rather than use it. The two sources you added simply use it as far as I can tell. I'm not keen on removing any of the sources that actually comply with the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I hope that my edit in the introduction provides you with your requested use of “Jewish lobby.” Yes, it does come from Tivnan, and has been on this page since Jan24 as part of my first post here. It also does discuss the matter however, which apparently you dislike. I find it quite good for the introduction because it both uses it and discusses it; it falls right into the existing text, and tends to have an NPOV introduction. If you have any questions concerning whether I inappropriately used the quote, the entire quote, indeed the entire paragraph is here [25]. Please better wikify, if this has format problems. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

...and people who have, sort of

I'm going to ask this question again, Jay. What do you consider as being applicable to this article; are there any subjects that you do consider should be included here? I ask this question because I know that there are things of specific (non-Israeli/Zionist) Jewish concern. Most recently, these concerns include immigration legislation, which I referenced with my first post to the talk page, these specifically Jewish concerns also include such broad categories as conservatism versus liberalism (Zionism versus non-Zionism), historical involvement in the civil rights issue versus current involvement, specific concerns about quotas, and affirmative action and quite a few more. Do you deny this? Is there nothing that should be included in this article as titled? What say you?

But there is also the interplay between those only Jewish, and those pro-Zionist and with the pro-Israeli lobby, as opposed to those who claim that there is ‘A People Torn between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics‘ (subtitle of ‘Fate of the Jews’, by Feuerlicht, noted above). I provide the following from ‘The Lobby’, by Tivnan, also referenced above.

In talking about the 1984 designed defeat of Senator Charles Percy. Tivnan notes that Percy had considerable Jewish support within the state and “A hundred prominent Illinois Jews sponsored a full-page ad declaring that Percy had “delivered for Illinois, delivered for America and delivered for Israel”. Thousands of Jews from all over the nation however, donated $3 million to Simon's campaign – 40 percent of his total funds.” It then goes on to describe the ensuing lawsuit and ends with the following paragraph.

“AIPAC claimed credit for beating Percy, and held the race up as an example to any member of Congress contemplating criticism of Israel. Tom Dine [head of AIPAC at the time] told a Jewish audience in Toronto, “All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians -- those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire -- got the message”. (ref 15 = ‘Speech to the Council of Jewish Federations in Toronto, November 1984’)

Now I ask, when Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC, is quoted in a reference like that (using the term 'Jews in America'), there are legitimate, serious questions as to what the Jewish lobby is. From what I have seen over 30 years, the ‘Israeli lobby’ purposely shields itself from exposure by dis-associating itself with any ref to the ‘Jewish Lobby’, which automatically, therefore, must be ‘anti-Semitic’. At the same time and from the other side of the equation, however, it takes sustenance from the fact that ‘Jewish’ support is natural and expected, within this ethno-religious community, but Lord help any Gentile who says so. The various deleted references noted above, are very, very pertinent to the issue at hand. Jay, again please, what should be in this article and what should not be in this article, as currently titled? I leave this question to you, an involved administrator(?); if you can not answer that question as an NPOV admin, then please, suggest someone who can. With respect, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here; the sources used should discuss the term "Jewish lobby". Does Tivnan do that? Regarding the rest, it seems to be original research on your part. I'm fine with any, I repeat, any reliable source that discusses the term, not just uses it, per WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post above, and while you are at it, could you please explain to me which part of my post you do consider to be OR. Really, this would help me understand your view of NOR, which I feel I need. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Goldberg's Back

I assume that's the same one discussed above, a discussion I didn't pay much attention to. Anyway, even if Goldberg uses that term, as Herzberg evidently does (page numbers help!), it's too long and should be one or two sentences at most making point that it has been used as a synonym for Israel Lobby. It could go in Israel Lobby in US if not there now. Carol Moore 06:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Actually neither one is saying it's synonymous with Israel Lobby. I just put it there for some background. If the objection is going to be (as I'm suspecting belatedly reading the above discussion) that we should only have comments that discuss usage of the term, then a number of the sources cited are questionable. Most do not discuss use of the term in any detail, some not at all, and most are only mentioning it in the context of some form of polemic. So is this another one of those articles that's just a bathtub to fill with dueling viewpoints, or perhaps one of those articles that's not sure what its about (the Jewish Lobby? The term the Jewish Lobby? The existence of a Jewish Lobby? The debate on whether the term is pejorative or not? All/none of the above?

Hertzberg is on p 34 of "Jewish Polemics." Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, which of the other sources in the article (aside from the ones you just added) do not actually discuss usage of the term? Can you be specific? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All these sources give different (and largely merely passing) examples of different notions of "usage", different enough to make listing them pretty useless from a comparative perspective. Apples, oranges, and eggplants. Bard isnt discussing how the term is used, he's questioning whether it's an accurate representation of a real thing in the world (he prefers Israel Lobby). W&M point out that they dont even use the term, but other people do, some of them Jews (earth shaking revelation and Pulitzer material, no doubt, but not much in the way of a discussion of usage) Jacobs sort of passes, in the one short sentence she devotes to it out of a whole essay. (By her def, by the way, Goldberg and Hertzberg are conspiracy mongers.) Vidal uses a very brief riff on "Jewish Lobby" to make an argument against extremism and a plea for unity in the catacombs of French politics. Re the Lobby, she has a somewhat novel argument, and her riff on "Jewish Lobby" is tailored to fit that argument: she says in France only fascists used the term in a "protocols" fashion, (i.e., referring to something fraudulent), unlike the US where the Lobby is real, by virtue of its "official standing with institutions and authorities." But now French Jews are using the term as a way of asserting power, and she sees that as problematic, a rightward move toward a dangerous intolerance on the part of rightist Jews. sort of the flip side of the attacks on Finkelstein--Vidal is attacking right wing Jews rather than left wing. Bettelheim doesnt discuss usage, just what it represents to him, and he doesnt like the term. The Queen Noor and Jimmy Carter thing is just weird original research and a convoluted attempt to show the term as "pejorative" (by using an example of people not using it? OK!) Cesarani says W&M (who dont use the term) would chide Dawkins for using the term rather than being like them and not using it, even though we all know they mean it, but know better not to use it, and Dawkins would be smart to not use it veen though he means it. Now there's a real contribution to the social sciences! So the article is telling us that Dawkins usage'd it, but we're not given a clue how, why or why we should care. The B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia gives us a tautological and harmless definition, although not sure why theyre a reliable source or what this tells us about "usage" (unless by "usage we mean that people "say it" -- "hey, don't usage me like that, its rude!") I haven't a clue what Levey and Mendes are saying, or at least what we are trying to sya they are saying. Safire says "Jewish lobby" refers to the same thing as "Israel Lobby" but the former is pejorative. OK! thanks! (no doubt Safire learned his sensitivity and understanding of nuance in the Jewish world from his days with that great friend of the Jews, Dick Nixon). Davies used the term carelessly because he was angry, unlike W&M, who, once again, we are reminded deviously didnt use the term (wink wink). So, I hope Wikipedia readers come away feeling as clear and enlightened about "usage of the term Jewish Lobby" as I have! Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, the sources all discussed the term, rather than being mere examples of its use. The problem with an article that starts using examples of use of the term is that there is no end to them, and how does one decide which are relevant? Moreover, what differentiates the article Carol is trying to create from the Israel lobby in the United States article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not avoid the "discuss" controversy and move it to Use section, since you still will be providing background there However, you do mix up the pro-Israel and other lobbying, somewhat redundantly with two authors. Plus you need to prove that Goldberg uses the phrase "Jewish Lobby" with a quote like you did Herzberg, and preferably with page number since you might actually have the books at hand. I'm just giving you that advice now before other parties who are against the idea delete it entirely without explaining how you can improve it.

So for example it might read something like (with made up first quote- please replace with a real one):

Author J. J. Goldberg writes the "Jewish Lobby predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest." The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg dates the Jewish Lobby's rise to prominence in the United States to the victory of Israel in the Six Day War. Hertzberg writes, "[T]he 'Jewish lobby' was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion."

Carol Moore 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Chronological order of USE quotes?

In Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom I lined up quotes in two sections in chrono order since it is a relatively new phenomena by organized lobbying organizations (as opposed to wealthy/influential individuals). Similarly, if "Jewish Lobby" allegedly is a neologism it seems that the use quotes might be in chrono order as well. If that doesn't seem like a good idea, I think they should as far as possible start with the neutral description quotes and then go into the allegedly antisemitic uses. Just an idea for improvement! :-) Carol Moore 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Chronological order is the best, NPOV way to enumerate things. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that some of the quotes are about Australia, some about France, some about the United Kingdom, etc., so it makes little sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point, Jay. I am quite sure, although it might be original thought (OT), that these are definitely a new and, in fact, growing phenomena. This again brings up a good reason for the split. I suspect we either can have a new article for each country, or have paragraphs that start ‘in Australia’, in France, and in the UK. You and I both know these are relatively new (say, post-Internet) and tend to be using the American model.

In that model, based on my references noted above, it starts with somewhat organized Jewry along religious/ethnic and/or geographic lines; then later comes the Zionist Dream, which was not universally accepted in America, but which won its dream of Israel in 1948, and everybody rejoices.

In 1967, however, troubling questions start to be asked; these center around Judaic ethics and historically liberal political philosophy versus a new (rightist) Zionist dream of Eretz Israel being somehow better than just Israel (at peace). Please refer here and also note a blue New Jewish Agenda, and a red Briera (group). I am also aware that most intra-Jewish subjects like this are generally restricted to Jewish arenas (lost my ref in Wiki), and understand it might be upsetting to some if Wikipedia should break that mold. That, to me tho, seems kinda, Un-Wiki, but I do AGF, do you? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It all depends how it's done, obviously. At my leisure I'll make an attempt. Meanwhile, it would make sense to put phrases that describe neutral uses first. By the way, looking at the Safire quote again, it looks like it is someone's interpretation of what he says and not his own words; or else someone doesn't know how to make it clear something is a full quote. Even more messed up in the text. Carol Moore 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

WP:OR Allows Summaries as long as accurate

Per the mediation which may start at some point, in all this talk about WP:OR I have noted very little discussion of the "summary" idea. I think WP:OR too often has been used to delete accurate descriptions by calling them synthesis and some of us have not sufficiently contested that point.

Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Start_with_what_you_know

...What we are about is researching and summarizing ideas and information that have already been publicized elsewhere....

Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources - Using Sources: ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source....

Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: ...Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly...

Carol Moore 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, please stop duplicating boilerplate comments in multiple articles, thanks. Regarding WP:NOR, it doesn't allow any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position, which is what you have consistently been doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources: Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Much of this article is a patchwork of passing comments, often decontextualized. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find this quite informative, concerning uses of sources. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great comments and link to Safyan. Maybe it is time to start taking a much harder look at those various links one by one. If half of them are as slanted as the way W&M quotes were (partially quoted to allow another person's speculation about what they said have more weight than what they actually said) then it would be a very POV article. Plus our brains get twisted around so much with double standards about what is "describing" and what is "using" (and whether it matters) that after a while one doesn't even try. So that chart is STILL a good idea, but other things to do right now. But first best to do easiest stuff: look at context of linked material and think about more rational ordering of quotations. Carol Moore 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Templates

Why not the {{United States lobbying}} here too? Tried inserting it, didn't render well due to the large size of the {{Antisemitism}} template unless the lobby template was above it, which looked strange. Perhaps someone has ideas to include both in an orderly fashion? 88.148.216.99 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be broad enough and does include specifically Israel already. I put it in at the bottom as {United States lobbying} Some day when article gets less POV we switch the order :-) Carol Moore 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I looked into the history of the Jewish lobby and found that there have been NPOV questions concerning the anti-Semitism info box before. I still question its legitimacy here and believe that the info box itself is likely NPOV, because it does not include ‘Disputed Allegations’; its placement is basically saying that this subject is anti-Semitic on its face. That is not the case. The ‘Jewish lobby’ is definitely one where the charges of anti-Semitism are disputed legitimately; this is highlighted by the fact that many within the “Jewish lobby” and Jews within the “Israeli lobby” use the term themselves. Possibly another one of those ‘pot and kettle’ things. I'm going to think on this one.

Anyway, Carol, you have a good point. In thinking about how best to characterize this page, I agree that {{United States lobbying}} is far more appropriate and should be at the top, and questionable allegations of outright and absolute anti-Semitism should be displayed considerably less prominently, if at all. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use Section Should Have Uses

User: G-Dett above noted the "whimsical inconsistency in actually applying this distinction between sources discussing use of the term and sources merely using the term," as many of us have noted in the past. Actually the attempt to delete any listing of uses clearly is a POV attempt to squash the many neutral uses in favor of quotes from the people who most frequently discuss the term: those who think it is being used anti-semitically.

Again, WP:OR says we can quote or summarize published reliable sources as long as we are not synthesizing, saying A uses Jewish Lobby thusly, B uses Jewish thusly and therefore C is true. Therefore listing non-anti-semitic uses is NOT WP:OR. However, it is WP:POV - a violation fo WP:NPOV - to exclude uses to skew the meaning of the term as this article does. And WP:NPOV is just as important as WP:OR.

Right now we have a POV article that doesn't even quote one anti-semitic use of the phrase, just a bunch of allegations that it is used anti-semitically. It's rediculous. I'm coming up with a new arrangement, deleting some redundant opinions and adding sourced info, including some recommended here a number of times by various editors.Carol Moore 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

One problem is that the term being used anti-semitically, of course, is contextual. Arthur Hertberg and David Duke can write the same sentence; even the same article, but its certainly not the same thing. And a Kevin B. MacDonald will protest that most of his formulations come from Jewish historians and social scientists. So one must go about the tricky business of demonstrating the contextual use involves the term being used by a Jew hater (which brings in tricky WP:OR, etc problems). I can smell an anti-Semite a mile away, but how do I demonstrate that in an WP:NPOV manner? Wikipedia is teeming with bios of "So and so is a philosopher and historian..." when everyone knows that they are neo-Nazis. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have an actual example of that and am looking for statement from WP:RS saying he is an antisemite and then separate quote, quoting him. Meanwhile, I think my including the Davies and Dawkins quotes was important to be accurate and NPOV. Carol Moore 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

G-Dett's statement was shown categorically to be wrong; every source that merely used the term, rather than discussed it was systematically removed. However, a number of editors have been determined to fill the article up with original research again, finding whatever uses of the term suit their agendas. So be it, and let's hope the mediation puts an end to that nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, G-Dett's statement was not shown to be categorically wrong; indeed it was not even substantively challenged. Stop playing games with this page, Jay.--G-Dett (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, G-Dett's statement was shown categorically to be wrong shown to be wrong, and it's no game. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion, Carol and Boodles. Made me think more about the term ‘Jewish lobby’. There are several legitimate uses of the word; and these cover a wide range of meanings from legitimate, descriptive and neutral, but also ranging into the depths of the derogatory, pejorative and defamatory. I think a re-write is definitely in order. There are things not included here yet. For example:

Basic, legitimate, historic Jewish ethics and influence, starting with, say, Genesis and the Abrahamic religions. This carries into the real, legitimate and considerable Jewish influence in the areas noted in the lede sentence and documented widely within Wiki. Simply stated, a discussion of the substantial, deserved and legitimate Jewish influence in America is necessary within this article. Without that discussion, it is almost impossible to informatively differentiate between considerable deserved influence and the description of appropriate proportionality/disproportionality of lobbying efforts and results. Personally, that later thought is best discussed in the Israel lobby in the United States. Also, it might be good to break the lede sentence into two sentences so that the proper weight can be given in to each and we can make things less nebulous. Another missing example is one that is truly anti-Semitic, which you discuss above.

The long passage from Feuerlicht, below, provides several things in this regard. Parts of it should probably go after Goldberg's second cite, because it provides backup for that thought. Both the first cite from Goldberg and the one from Arthur Hertzberg, should be moved farther down because they relate specifically to the increased power of the ‘Israeli lobby’, over that of the ‘Jewish lobby’, and I have quite a bit more on that on the appropriate page. Similarly, it discusses the difference veiws between proportionality and disproportionality, and provides a good historic instance of anti-Semitism before the word New anti-Semitism was conceived. I provided the long passage so that things could be put in their proper context. In’ Fate of the Jews’ (p120-123), Feuerlicht writes:

The new deal was widely approved by the Jews, who saw some of the reforms they had championed as Socialists realized under the Democrats. Who needed a revolution when a capitalist president supported their favorite cause? Jews were also pleased when Roosevelt surrounded himself with Jewish advisers like Sidney Hillman, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Sam Rosenman, Anna Rosenberg, and Bernard Baruch. (p.120)

Poor or uneducated Protestants voted for Roosevelt; rich or educated Protestants voted Republican. Poor or on educated Jews voted for Roosevelt, but so did rich or educated Jews. In 1944 for Roosevelt got less than 40% of the Protestant fold, while piling up 90% of the Jewish vote. (p.121)

An anonymous slur, popular at the time because of Roosevelt's Jewish advisers was: “The New Deal is the Jew Deal.” Though the phrase is ugly, there is a truth to it that anti-Semites did not recognize. The new deal accepted the fundamental Jewish concept that the community is responsible for the welfare of the people. This is not an option but a mandate; the people must be fed, housed, clothed. The socialist ideal of a caring government is characteristically Jewish. Wealthy and successful Jews voted for Roosevelt, because his policies were consistent with their religious memory and communal obligation of charity and social justice. (pp121-122)

World War II was probably the great divide in the story of American Jews, but to a larger degree it merely accelerated changes that had begun with World War I or even sooner. (p.122) Second-and third-generation Jewish Americans fled both the ghetto and ghetto occupations. By the 1930s, some 11% of employed Jewish males were professionals, twice the figure for American males as a whole. Some of the bright young men who would have been denied access to Russian universities or professions and been radicalized in their anger went to American universities and became contented capitalists or professionals. Professor John Higham wrote, “Second-generation Jews stood out more and more as the most numerous and successful ethnic minority in beating the campuses.”(p.123)

Whatever the realities, Jews were perceived as being richer and more powerful than they actually were. In 1938 when Jews were still excluded from most major universities by blatant discrimination, a pollster asked, “Do you think the Jews have too much power in the United States?” In response, 41% of the American public said yes.

Anti-Semitism rose in America in the 1920s and 1930s, as the depression turned one group against another. Some Christians swallowed the fabrication that America's economic woes were the fault of international Jewish bankers. The rise of fascism in Europe and the fear of war made matters worse. Jews were accused, by such respected figures as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, of either manipulating the economy, causing the depression, or trying to push the country into a needless war just to save other Jews. (p.123)

Jewish wealth, mobility, and power were of such concern to Christian America that in February 1936 Fortune magazine published a major article on “Jews in America.” The ostensible purpose was to discuss and his own anti-Semitism, but consciously or not the articles seem to be reassuring Gentiles, that Jews had not “monopolize the opportunities for economic advance.”(p.123-124)

I hope this provides some food for thought. Please let me know if you have any questions. By the way, I just noted that Jay is back, and without discussion has deleted my Tivnan quote in the intro, after being gone for nearly a week. Well, this might use my pledge for the week as a member of WP:IPCOLL. Please, Jay, let's discuss things first; we seem to be moving somewhere closer to where Wikipedia should be; it is not OR, it is a quote from a 20 year old book. Give me a break. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we can always revert and get the Tivnan quote back, I will not waste my 1 revert pledge. I did however post the deletion and requested assistance on both WP:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard. Thank you for your support. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also added my name to the mediation, since Jayjg had suggested I do so, some weeks ago. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've been told that I did not delete the quote, but instead moved it to a more relevant location (not that it really belongs in the article at all), and have also been told that the material contained OR, would an apology be in order? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, my newbieness got to me there, but please note, it didn’t bother me much at the time, as explained and I didn’t just revert; I apologize for my newbieness, but not my honest skepticism concerning your frequent claims of what constitutes OR. I will also note that the ‘OR’ was only the transition prose I wrote to fit it into the existing para, not the other half of the sourced quote which you deleted and which remains, for now, out of the article in which it certainly does belong. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My "claims of what constitute OR" are far less frequent that its actual appearance in this article; I'm hoping the policy violating material will eventually be removed via mediation - it's obvious that some editors refuse to take the issue seriously, and instead insist on inserting agenda-based items. It's quite astonishing to watch, they unashamedly state their agenda on this Talk: page itself; rather than reporting what the sources say, they state what they think the article should say to begin with, then insist they will try to find uses that support their thesis. Regarding the Tivnan quote, apparently Tivnan wrote a whole book on the subject; why would that specific quotation be more apropos than any other one? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of OR is extremely important and must be avoided on the article page. I admit to some original thinking on the talk page, but I don’t think that violates Wikipedia’s rule against OR. My purpose in doing so is to help lay out the numerous quotes from RS in a logical way so that these might be characterized into a meaningful article for the benefit of the reader. If some editors consider that an “agenda” then please put a name to it. I call it honesty: I call that agenda NPOV with logical, balanced thinking.

My first post [26], Jan24, said I had Tivnan’s booked in my hot little hands. As far as my selection of quotes from Tivnan, I can only admit that I took your previous requests to heart, and thus limited them to generally those with “Jewish lobby”. Several editors including myself have requested an open discussion of these various uses and have suggested an initial disambiguation page to differentiate what/if what goes where. Frankly, Jay, you seem to be avoiding this issue like the plague; IMHO, it is not OR if it is on the talk page, please join us in real, constructive discussion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a very important quote from WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

This applies whether or not you consider the term to be a neologism. Cobbling together a selection of sources that use a term - and, even moreso, searching for specific uses that fit your thesis - is inevitably and unavoidably original research. It's not up to you, or any Wikipedia editor to discuss or categorize the "various uses". Instead, find reliable sources that do so. That is the crucial issue that you and Carol seem to be "avoiding like the plague". Any discussion about how to include original research into an article cannot be "constructive". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, as has been pointed out many times.--G-Dett (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? This applies whether or not you consider the term to be a neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And I should believe this because....you put it in bold?

Why would a guideline on neologisms have the force of policy on a non-neologism?--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, as G-Dett has again reminded you (and has been stated to you at least twenty times in the last year) "Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, and therefore the whole basis on which you have been removing relevant text cited to WP:RS from this article is flawed; which makes your edits particularly problematic. Furthermore, for an admin who seems to delight in lecturing us mere mortal editors about the wonders of WP:NOR, perhaps you should take the time to actually read the WP:NOR page. If you were to do so, you would find that contrary to your statement about how WP editors must not "categorize the various uses", WP:NOR states: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Jgui (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that tidbit. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? This applies whether or not you consider the term to be a neologism, and therefore the whole basis on which you have been inserting primary sources using the term into this article is flawed; which makes your edits particularly problematic. As for that out-of-context quote from the WP:NOR page, it's been misapplied on this Talk: page many times before, there's no need to do so again. In it's opening paragraphs WP:NOR forbids any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Carol (and you) are analyzing primary sources, and using them to synthesize a theory about the phrase "Jewish lobby" in order to advance various positions about it. This is forbidden, by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, yes I did read your comment AND IT IS INCORRECT. You are trying to apply a policy related to neologisms, and only to neologisms, to phrases that are NOT neologisms. And you have been doing it for more than a year, preventing many good-faith editors from contributing to this article by removing their edits with the spurious claim that the term IS a neologism.

Jayjg, it is time you answered whether YOU think that the term is a neologism, because if you do not, then you have been disrupting this page for the last year under false pretenses, causing edit wars and wasting hours of other editors' time for no apparent reason other than to WP:OWN this page. If, on the other hand, you really do believe that you were following WP policy because the term really IS a neologism, then please state that here, so that discussion can be concluded. We can then discuss WP:NOR, since you seem to misunderstand that policy as well, since the primary OR that has been taking place on this page is your OR claiming that: "Jewish lobby is a neologism". Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, when you use examples of usage as primary source, it is, by definition, original research. This is true whether or not the phrase is a neologism. The fact that the WP:NEO uses this as an example of WP:NOR does not mean that it does not apply to other similar usages. On the contrary, it surely does. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualobservr wrote: There are several legitimate uses of the word; and these cover a wide range of meanings from legitimate, descriptive and neutral, but also ranging into the depths of the derogatory, pejorative and defamatory. That's what we've been saying all along - except there also is critical but NON-antisemitic use. However, all the material you quoted not relevant to an article specifically about PHRASE "Jewish Lobby". (Might be relevant to article called [perceptions of Jewish power] or something.)

At this point my goal is balance. 5-6 examples each of Jewish neutral or positive use; mainstream neutral use; critical use; anti-semitic use. Preferably couched in discussion of use of the term. Carol Moore 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sounds like a perfect recipe for original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly sounds like a perfect way to avoid open discussion of the topic at hand. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you imagine the "topic at hand" to be? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'topic at hand', Jay, is a logical, editorial discussion on the editorial page, of what constitutes the 'Jewish lobby' in order to write an article that is 'for the benefit of the readers'. I do believe that this is the reason why most editors are participating in the Wiki-project; if you have a different reason, please say so. If you have a different perspective, please enlighten the rest of us; if you we are putting 'undue weight' on one side versus the other, please explain, so we understand. If you live only by blue-linked quotes from the Internet, then you have a very stilted view of history, of what is 'true' and the 'subject at hand'. I very much understand the difference between what is 'true' and what is 'the truth', and that is why I am requesting on open discussion of the facts presented by others, as well as my personal opinion and your's. It is only through mutual understanding and respect for other opinions that the project will be successful. Personally, I am not out to get you, so to say, or your opinion; what I am here for is to document and support the other side of the coin, since this is where I see Wiki failing. Remember, 'Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one'; this is totally Wiki NPOV; but the corollary 'and everyone else's stinks' is totally POV. Before honest editors may make an honest decision as to what constitutes an honest article, an open discussion should be initiated. My opinion matters no more than yours; we are talking about what RSs say, and obviously each of ours' has a different fragrance. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Want to know "what constitutes the 'Jewish lobby'"? Then quote what reliable sources say "constitutes the 'Jewish lobby'." Don't cobble together a bunch of primary sources using the term, and use them to promote an unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

William Safire quote

Carol, could you explain exactly what it is that concerns you about the Safire quote? Also, it would be helpful if you would avoid blind reverts, your last one broke a reference I had fixes. Also, I've removed this material you added:

Safire is a former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, who, according to Henry Kissinger, "delighted in telling associates and visitors that the 'Jewish lobby' had no effect on him."

The fact that Safire was a former speechwriter for Nixon is irrelevant to this article, and the insertion itself is a third-hand quote about Nixon (via Kissinger), so it obviously has nothing to do with Safire himself, or how the term is used in Great Britain. Also, the way you worded it made it appear that it was Safire who "delighted in telling visitors..." etc., not Nixon. I'm sure it was unintentional, and it's not relevant to this article anyway, as the quote itself is just another random Googling of the term "Jewish lobby", but please be more careful in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Exact Safire Quote??

re: Safire quote. To ask the question again more explicitly: which is actual quote from Safire, whole sentence or quoted parts only? The lack of proper punctuation confuses issue...

• 1. In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, "the Jewish lobby," as in this Financial Times usage in 1977...
• 2. "In Great Britain the 'Israel lobby' is called, even more pejoratively, 'the Jewish lobby,' as in this Financial Times usage in 1977..."

Carol Moore 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What specifically concerns you about the quote? It includes the relevant part of Safire's statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you put the quote in? If so, are you saying that only the phrases in quotes are Safire's and rest is summary??In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, "the Jewish lobby," as in this Financial Times usage in 1977... Anyone who can get near a bookstore or library to look it up? (I'm stck at home another couple weeks.)Carol Moore 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This article is a hopeless muddle

• It has a "history" section with no real history; rather, the "history" section contains a rant by a minor writer who nazi-baits users of the term "Jewish Lobby."
• Then we have a usage section, which actually contains some real history, but it is debased as history by characterizing it as "usage" of the term, rather than a bit of explication of the history of the Jewish Lobby.
• Then we devolve into a complete muddle of usages, definitions, opinions, debates and the usual battle of the POV's.
• What exactly is the article about? Is it about the Jewish Lobby? If so, then lets say what it is and give a good encyclopedic workup of it.
• What is the rationale for "...a term used to describe or allege..." in the opening sentence? Do we say "murder is a term used to describe or allege the unlawful killing..." even though it can be used both ways, or "psychotic is a term used to describe or allege a mental state..." even though it can be used in those or other contexts? If Wikipedia can't make up it's mind whether or not there is a Jewish Lobby, then maybe it shouldn't be writing an article about it. (About what?) If nothing else, an article surely is not the venue for Wikipedia to work through/act out its muddle. But to me it seems like a simple article:
• The Jewish Lobby consists of....
• It's related to "Israel Lobby" like so, sometimes used interchangably, although not quite the same...
• Some people have expressed concern about the influence of the Jewish Lobby here and there
• Some people say this complaints are overblown, and even constitute antisemitism
• Some people disagree, and feel the charge of antiSemitism is not fair/accurate/etc
• Some nasty actual anti-Semites use the term, much in the way that fascists etc have always debased language and terminology for their own vile ends
• End of fine little article.

Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis. Carol Moore 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm doing my best to improve it, but my every effort is resisted by people who ignore basic Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree to Delete Irrelevant Image?

It's nearly impossible to get in most of the quotes with phrase Jewish Lobby but a whole graphic with a caption NOT using phrase gets in, i.e.: "US in the hands of the Jews". Antisemitic political cartoon in the 1896 US presidential election campaign." Can we at least agree this is irrelevant and wait for a cartoon that actually uses the phrase? Carol Moore 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Agree, it totally skews the article. If it stays, I really have no interest in spending time trying to help write an article about the Jewish lobby, if the implication is that I'm legitimizing a term that is being portrayed here as anti-Semitic. Frankly, I find that a priori set-up rather offensive, and not a little bit silly. I'm not happy either with the glaring "Antisemitism" category bar, when the actual relevant one, lobbing in the United States, is buried below.Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one comes up with legit wiki response in couple days we can delete. Meanwhile, onece we settle Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby it will be easier to deal with "Antisemitism" vs. lobbying category bars. Carol Moore 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hadn't thought about that in a while, but you're right; it doesn't belong in the article. Nothing in the article indicates there was a US Jewish lobby in the late 19th century. The earliest references I've been able to find involve efforts to find homes for Russian Jews escaping the 1903-1906 Pogrom. (There was some lobbying involved on immigration issues. Lobbying was so much smaller then; a few people went from New York to Washington to talk to a few officials.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a modest Jewish lobby in America at that time, but this cartoon has nothing to do with it; its imagery represents a peak moment in the surge in anti-Semitism in America in the post civil war era, which was loosely related conceptually to that in Europe, particularly Germany. America was still strongly self identified as a Christian nation at that time, and backlash against Jews (not to mention other non WASPs of all types) had little to nothing to do with actual lobbying activities or influence, but rather classic imagery of evil moneychangers and Rothschilds, fueled by a regular cycle of dperessions as America's gentile robber barons thurst the country into a raw, crude, and brutal industrialization. It was pure classic blood libel conspiratorial anti-Semitism, which figured into the 1896 election, particularly promoted by the agrarian-based Populists, at a time when debates over the gold standard were raging and farmers were suffering the effects of monopolization. The imagery of Jewish moneychangers was vicious but largely metaphorical and an adaptation of classical themes for political propaganda. Most of the Populists rural base had never seen a Jew in their lives. The nasty anti-Semitism fueled the rise of the first Jewish self protection societies, so these proto-lobbies were more a response to anti-Semitism than an ostensible cause of it. The cartoon bears no relationship to the early lobbies or the actual Jewish lobby that has evolved since the early 20th century, except in the minds of die hard anti-Semites, but I would hope we are not letting their POV guide this article, rather than actual history. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete the cartoon, please, it just doesn't belong here. I will look at what Feuerlicht's Fate of the Jews says; it is mostly about intra-communal organizing, union organizing. They were active (lobbying?) in the US in the 1920s regarding the recently imposed immigration restrictions. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The cartoon is making an allegation of Jewish control of the U.S. via banking, not lobbying, due to the Democrats and Republicans conspiring to run up the U.S. national debt. Note as well that was published in Sound Money magazine if you don't understand the imagery as economic. This is more relevant to the fight over the gold standard and other issues pertaining to the United States presidential election, 1896 than anything to do with lobbying influence, perhaps a commentary on the Rothschilds, Bleichroder and the Warburgs to whom the U.S. possibly did owe some serious money at the time. It would be interesting to see how this cartoon was printed in its original context. But I hesitate to stub out Jewish banking just to give this cartoon a home. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that cartoon, the mention of the "Gold Standard" in it suggests that this has something to do with the Free Silver movement. ("you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."[27] - William Jennings Bryan. This was an early approach to an inflationary economic stimulus package. There's interesting history there. But it's not really related to this article. --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some real history?

Boodles, I feel quite the same, especially concerning the history section; it seems mainly to provide reasons for the anti-Semitism template on the page, which I am really starting to question. Given the lack of material, I am providing a series of long quotes (with references) from George Lenczowski’s [28] last book (1990), American Presidents and the Middle East. Please excuse that the term “Jewish lobby” is not used, but I do believe we are talking about Jewish lobbying before Israel was established (but he also notes the presence of Christian Zionists at the time, but off-topic for this article).

Lenczowski: American Presidents and the Middle East, (p27-28)

In shaping his policy toward Palestine Truman experienced continuous pressures, especially from the Jewish community, virtually from the very moment he took office as president. These pressures were not limited to solicitation of his political and diplomatic support. “Top Jewish leaders in the United States were putting all sorts of pressure on me to commit American power and forces on behalf of the Jewish aspirations in Palestine.” When the Palestine question reached the forum of the United Nations, the Zionist efforts to ensure partition gained in intensity. They also bifurcated: some were directed toward securing a favorable vote of lesser Latin American countries and some were aiming straight at the US president. According to Truman, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders --- actuated by a political motive and engaging in political threats --- disturbed and annoyed me.” The president’s daughter, Margaret, also testifies to the relentlessness and intensity of the Zionist campaign that “irritated” the president. Zionist leaders, she recalls, urged her father to “browbeat” South American and other countries into supporting partition. She acknowledges that “it was one of the worst messes of my father’s career…To tell the truth about what had happened would have made him and the entire American government look ridiculous. Not even in his memoirs did he feel free to tell the whole story, although he hinted at it. Now, I think it is time for it to be told.” Thus she reveals that on August 23, 1947, some three months before the UN partition vote, the president expressed his disapproval of Zionist pressure in a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt: “The action of some of our United States Zionists will prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done. I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on the top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side.”

Lenczowski: American Presidents and the Middle East, p 29-30

Whatever misgivings Truman might have had about the Zionist program, he eventually not only embraced it but added impetus to it by ordering the US delegation at the United Nations to vote for partition. It is not easy to give an evaluation of his motives in choosing this option. Initially, as we have seen he was merely interested in relieving human misery by urging admission of displaced Jews to British-ruled Palestine. In that early stage, he appeared to be quite firm in rejecting “a political structure imposed on the Middle East that would result in conflict.” He was also aware, as we have seen, of the gains likely to accrue to the Soviets if Arabs were to be antagonized. Yet he ultimately chose a policy that did lead to conflict and opened the gates to Soviet penetration in the Arab world, as the examples of Nasser’s, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states showed. Was this policy based on his genuine conversion to the idea that the thus generated conflict in the Middle East was of secondary importance and that the Soviet factor could be safely disregarded? This alternative does not quite square with his determination to stop Soviet advances in the northern tier of Iran, Turkey, and Greece. Furthermore, as his arms embargo indicated, he did not identify US interest with Israel’s victory and never went on record claiming that Israel was America’s ally or strategic asset. This leaves us with the other possible alternative --- that despite his resentment of the political pressures at home he chose to give them priority over other considerations. Certain observers who stood close to the decision-making process of that era were convinced that domestic politics constituted a major motivation in Truman’s behavior. In the often quoted statement addressed to four American envoys from the middle east who, at a meeting in the White House on November 10, 1945, warned him of adverse effects of a pro-Zionist policy, he declared: “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

Please, let’s discuss the use of these passages, where appropriate in the history. I will be providing more as I work through the years, from the RSs that I have. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Those excerpts illustrate some of the complexities of the era, with Jewish lobbying power beginning to flex its strength and taking head-on a political establishment that was indifferent to Jews at best and contained a not so subtle anti-Semitic current (as seen in those now famous Truman quotes). This all is in the context of the aftermath of the tragic and unconscionable failures of the New Deal regime to act on behalf of Jews in the Hitler era. Now the Lobby is flexing its muscle and coming head to head with Cold War realpolitic. The anti-Semitic undercurrent continued well into recent years, peaking of course with the Jew hater Nixon.Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, in what way would you see this article differing from The Israel lobby in the United States? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology Section?

It does occur to me a section on history of use of word helpful - an eytemology. Though don't know if we have enough info at this point as to actal first uses and important bifurcations in uses. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Etymology. Carol Moore 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree and am working on that from my RSs. Brace yourself for some logical, factual thinking. The 'Jewish lobby' came first; the 'Zionist lobby' came next, post-Hertzl, and was added to the previous traditional concerns and growing influence; the 'Israel lobby' followed these, building on their previously proven domestic political/financial influence. I'll post some excerpts soon. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Information for discussion of History

Here are some excerpts from my books, which I believe deal with a ‘history’ section for the article, or are related to defining what it is/was at the time. These mainly deal with old history, where I can contribute best to the project benefit. I hope they encourage discussion.

• Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht. “The Fate of the Jews, A People Torn Between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics”. Times Books, 1983. ISBN 0812910605.

from Feuerlicht, p 68-69.

Some forty Jews fought under General George Washington, and others gave financial support. When the war ended and the work of building a new nation began, Jews petitioned the Constitutional Convention to exclude religious tests for public office. Jonas Phillips wrote that if the Constitutional convention would omit reference to the New Testament as divine,” the Israelites will think themself happy to live under a government where all Religious societies are on an Equal footing.” Several weeks before Phillips penned his letter, the convention passed Article VI, which reads in part: ”No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

from Feuerlicht, p77.

Though Jews [as well as Catholics] won the right to chaplains, the Civil War [also] saw the issuance of the most anti-Semitic edict in American history. [[[General Order No 11 (1862)| General Order No 11]]]

from Feuerlicht, p78.

Jews were grateful to Lincoln and considered him their friend. The president’s chiropodist, a Jew named Isachar Zacharie, who worked in Lincoln’s reelection campaign in 1864, assured him that he had the support of New York’s Jewish community... According to Professor Lawrence Fuchs, author of The Political Behavior of American Jews, when the civil war began, a majority of Jews were Democrats; when it ended, a “vast majority,” attracted by Lincoln or repelled by the Democratic Party were Republicans. This was no problem when Lincoln was president, but in 1868, the Republican presidential candidate was Ulysses S. Grant, the man who had ordered the Jews as a class out of Tennessee. Though a presumed anti-Semite ran for president, there was no monolithic Jewish vote. The Jewish press tried to minimize talk of a Jewish bloc; they urged Jews to vote as Americans, not as Jews. Most attempts to organize the Jewish vote against Grant failed. The Jews of Memphis, who had been directly affected by Grant’s order, organized as Jews to defeat Grant, whom they called unfit and prejudiced. They asked other Jews to follow their example, but only the Jews of Nashville did so. In New York, a group of Jews organized in support for Grant. Except for Cleveland and Wilson, the White House remained in Republican hands from 1860 to 1932. Jews were active in both parties, but wrote Fuchs, “most of them appear to have been Republicans.” Though some Jews may have been drawn to the party because of its principles, most of its principles died with Lincoln. With Grant and his successors, the Republicans became less the party of abolition and more the haven of wealth and corruption. By the turn of the century, Jews were active in both major parties but were elected or appointed to political office more often as Republicans. New York Jews were the exception, but even there Jewish Democrats tried to leave as much space as possible between themselves and Tammany Hall, which was by then in the hands of the Irish.

from Feuerlicht, p80

As president, Theodore Roosevelt appointed the first Jewish cabinet member, Oscar Straus, as secretary of commerce and labor. Roosevelt told Straus, “I want to show Russia, what we think of the Jews in this country.” Some weeks later, at a banquet honoring Straus, Roosevelt piously insisted he had not named Straus because he was a Jew. “I would despise myself if I considered the race or religion of a man named for high political office,” said the president. “Merit and merit alone dictated his appointment.” Another guest at the banquet was Jacob Schiff, the Jewish financier, who was a confidant of the president. Schiff, who was hard of hearing, didn’t quite catch what Roosevelt said. “That’s right, Mr. President,” said Schiff. “You came to me and said ‘Jake, who is the best Jew to appointe Secretary of Commerce? ‘”

Roosevelt was considered a friend of the Jews not only for the Strauss appointment but for accepting a petition, protesting the Kishinev pogrom and sending it to the tsar. When Roosevelt ran for president in 1904, important Jews supported him. A Jewish weekly, The American Hebrew, wrote that, while there should be no such thing as a Jewish vote, there was no reason why Jews as individuals shouldn’t vote for a man who ”has indisputably done things that entitle him to the good will of our people.” Fuchs says that, ”a majority” of Jews voted for Roosevelt.

from Feuerlicht, p81

Many Jews saw Wilson as an ideal candidate, an irresistible combination of politician and professor. The Jewish Advocate of Boston wrote, “Jews should support a man like him, who has made cultural the shining purpose of his life.”

In November 1912, the Jewish vote was divided among the four presidential candidates: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs. As president, Wilson pleased the Jewish voter; he appointed Louis Brandeis, the first Jew to serve on the Supreme Court and kept America out of the war. When Wilson ran for reelection in 1916, “for the first time in at least 16 years and perhaps for the first time since 1856 more Jews [55 percent] voted for a Democratic candidate for president than voted for the Republican nominee [45percent].” One month after his inauguration, Wilson asked Congress to declare war.

from Feuerlicht, p82

The third period of Jewish emmigration to the United States can accurately be called a tidal wave. Between 1881 and 1920, 2 million Jews came to America, virtually all of them from Eastern Europe. Before that, some Eastern European Jews came as individuals or even families, but now the Pale was drained. During those years of mass migration, America’s population rose 112%, from 50 million 206 million. At the same time, America’s Jewish population rose 1300% from 250,000 to 3.5 million.

from Feuerlicht, p94

Western Jews understood the situation in the Pale so poorly that they thought was their generosity, rather than Russian persecution, that motivated the migration to America. An important American Reform rabbi, Max Lilienthal, suggested that the refugees be sent to Palestine. He was not a Zionist; he simply didn’t want them here^[Footnote].

^[Footnote]One of the unstated purposes of Palestine is to serve as a litter basket for Jews unwanted elsewhere. Thus the old definition: A Zionist is a Jew who raises money from a second Jew to send a third Jew to Palestine. Just as Zionists today do not want American Jews to help Russian Jews who refuse to go to Israel, earlier Zionists did not want American Jews to help Russian Jews who were literally starving to death during the Russian famine of the 1920s. Philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen wrote that “a distinguished American Zionist wrote that ’man does not live by bread alone,’ that ‘Palestine was the only salvation,’ and that it was ‘useless to give bread’ to the Jews of Russia.” Cohen noted that his own cousin starved to death.

from Feuerlicht, p94, 95

Eventually, German Jews realized that there was no turning back the tide of Russian Jews. So they organized aid for them both and route and in America. But the Russian Jews generally bypassed the various agencies set up for them by the German Jews. The first Russian Jewish immigrants helped themselves and then set up their own organizations to help those who followed. Though attempts were made to resettle Russian Jews all across America, two thirds of them chose to stay in cities on the East Coast. Most Russian Jews stayed in New York… For most of the 19th century, American Jewish politics were in the hands of German Jews. The Russian Jewish exodus did not begin until 1881, and then it took time for them to become Americans, both legally and culturally.

from Feuerlicht, p96

In her marvelous book on the downtown Jews, Poor Cousins, Ande Manners wrote that the uptown or German Jews denied the existence of a Jewish vote, because when Russian Jews did become citizens and vote they had the deplorable taste to vote for the wrong party. “In certain circumstances, a Jewish vote was acceptable,” wrote Manners, “It is safe to say, for example, that if every Jewish immigrant citizen had voted for William McKinley, not one uptown Jew would have been embarrassed.” But the downtown Jews did not vote for McKinley, they voted Democratic, or, even worse, socialist.

Feuerlicht notes heavy Jewish involvement in the early days of the organized labor movement and the strong influence of socialist and communist political beliefs coming from the old country. “In 1885, Russian Jewish socialists and Hungarian Jewish socialists had formed the Yiddisher Arbeiter Verein ( Jewish Workers’ Association) to organize labor unions. In 1887, the JWA became Branch 8 of the Socialist Labor Party, the first unit to identify itself as a Jewish. In organizing labor, Branch 8 faced the slings and arrows of outraged garment manufacturers, who told the workers to vote Republican, and the anarchists, who told the workers not to vote at all. Nonetheless, in 1888 Branch 8 and Branch 17, which was called the Russian Branch of the Socialist Labor Party, though all of its members were Jewish, decided to organize a Jewish trade federation. "Branch 8 and Branch 17 decided to proceed with the Jewish labor federation even though there were no unions to federate. They would build from the top down: create the federation first and then the unions. In October 1888, the United Hebrew Trades (UHT) was organized to promote mutual aid and cooperation among Jewish trade unions, to organize such unions, and to disseminate socialist ideas among Jewish worker."

The secular Bible of the immigrants, The Forward, was socialist. The Jewish unions were led by socialists. The major Jewish fraternal organization, the Workmen’s Circle, was socialist. The most impressive leaders of the downtown Jewish community were socialists. Morris Hillquist and Meyer London, the two most prominent Jewish office seekers in the early decades of the century, ran his socialists.

• Cheryl A. Rubenberg. “Israel and the American National Interest, A critical Examination”. University of Illinois Press, 1986. ISBN 0252013301.

Like the Arab nationalist movement, Zionism originally subsumed several distinct concepts and ideas, (including the idea of a binational Jewish and Arab state), but was solidified in 1942 with the adoption of the Biltmore program, a formal declaration of Zionist aims with regard to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. … After the adoption of the Biltmore program, the Jewish Agency acted diplomatically on the behalf of the World Zionist Movement and the Jewish population of Palestine. Political Zionism reached its apogee in the years between 1942 in 1947 as it works toward the establishment of the Jewish state and unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine.

The United States had not, however, been entirely aloof from the Palestine question. For example, on September 21, 1922, the American Congress passed a joint resolution stating its support for a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people”. [N.B. The date of passage is one day before the Mandate of Palestine was approved by the Council of the League of Nations I was suprised to find this, I coundn't Google it, but confirmation is shown below (Ball).]

In January 1944 identical resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate declaring that the United States government supported the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, because of wartime considerations and Arab opposition to the creation of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland, the War Department persuaded Congress in March to shelve the resolutions temporarily. In October, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, withdrew his department’s objection to the resolutions, declaring that since political considerations now outweighed the military ones, the issue should be determined on a political rather than military bases. The resolutions were reported back to both houses in December, but action was again postponed this time, resulting from intervention by the Department of State. That department concerned about the diplomatic and political repercussions for the United States from an overtly pro-Zionist position, argued that “the passage of the resolutions at the present time would be unwise from the standpoint of the general international situation.” Consequently, the resolutions were dropped permanently.

• George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball. “The Passionate Attachment, America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to Present”. W.W.Norton and Co., 1992. ISBN 0393029336.

from Ball, p20

To secure a favorable General Assembly vote force such a [[[UNSCOP]]]plan, President Harry Truman engaged in active lobbying for the Zionist cause. Following from original post lost due to edit conflict. The announcement of the abandonment of the mandate electrified the American Jewish community, who immediately made their feelings known to Congress. Motivated by sympathy for Israel and domestic pressure from committed constituents, congressmen rejected President Truman’s request for an emergency immigration allocation that would admit 100,000 stateless Jews to the United States. Jews, the congressmen insisted would settle in their new “homeland.” Delegates to the 1944 Democratic convention adopted the following resolution in Section V: “We favor the opening of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration and colonialization and such a policy as to result in the establishment there of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.” The Republicans, not to be outdone, declared “we call forr the opening of Palestine to… in restricted immigration and land ownership, so that in accordance with the full intent and purpose of the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the resolution of the Republican Congress of 1922, Palestine may be constituted is a free and democratic commonwealth….”</ref>

Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote above: However, all the material you quoted not relevant to an article specifically about PHRASE "Jewish Lobby". (Might be relevant to article called [perceptions of Jewish power] or something.) Diaspora_politics_in_the_United_States might also give you some ideas. If there wasn't so much opposition even to quotes using the phrase, any such more general history doesn't have much of a chance. Carol Moore 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Casual, I see you're working on an improved History section. I think that is great. I have been waiting for Jayjg to reappear before making a major organizational edit of my own, but since he has been away for a week I don't want to wait any longer and I've gone ahead and made my edit (described in the sections below). As you can see I removed the existing History section after moving all of its text to another section. As I say below, a new History section (consisting of real History this time) can easily be added and would be a worthy addition, and I think will work much better with the new organization. Please let me know what you think. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization to include descriptive usage

Link to my edit (in case it is reverted out before you can read it) HERE.

There has been a cloud hanging over the JL article for more than a year. This cloud has been the dispute over whether the term JL is always and solely an antisemitic "neologism". The "neologism" claim has been repeatedly and heavily disputed. The "neologism" claim has been used to justify removing a large and varied number of citations from indisputably WP:RS. The rationale for removing this text based on WP policy regarding "neologism" has been championed by Jayjg, and he has stated it numerous times: e.g. HERE.

It has been the belief of many other editors that JL is not a "neologism"; they have stated their cases many times also: e.g. HERE and HERE.

This dispute has led to a great deal of anger and frustration from many editors, and has led to numerous edit wars and has recently led to the imposition of sanctions on four of the editors contributing to this page - myself and Nagle arguing for changes to the article, Armon and Yahul Guhan arguing for blocking these changes due to the neologism argument.

In the meantime several editors have found good references that refute the "neologism" argument. The fact that JL is defined in Raymond's dictionary as a special-interest lobby is the major one; the fact that the term is discussed in the same descriptive fashion (not an antisemitic fashion) by numerous writers also refute this argument.

Jayjg is still removing text based on the "neologism" policy, although it is not clear whether he still believes that JL is a neologism, since he has not yet answered the questions put to him a week ago HERE. In any case, it has been pointed out to him that he cannot apply a neologism policy to phrases that are not neologisms, so I hope we can expect him and other editors to stop removing text based on that argument.

No, I'm removing material based on the no original research policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT a Neologism

In case there is still any doubt in Jayjg's or any other editor's minds that the term is in fact NOT a "neologism", I have found a reference in the definitive source of the English language (the Oxford English Dictionary) that makes the "neologism" argument completely untenable. If you look up the definition of "lobby" in the OED2 in your local library, you will find that they use "Jewish lobby" as an example of the use of "lobby" as a sectional or special-interest (page number in the citation in the edited article).

Substantial Edit

It has been clear to at least most of the editors here that the term is not a "neologism", and its inclusion in the OED2 (citing its use descriptively going back to 1958) should make this clear to all editors. And yet this article is still organized as if "Jewish lobby" were an antisemitic neologism. The lede section has been substantially improved to discuss the different uses, but the remainder of the article is a "hopeless muddle" with a "History section with no real history" (and certainly no history of the term) and a Usage section that jumps around frenetically but organized around the underlying principal that the term is an antisemitic neologism.

I think all editors can agree that there were two major problems with this article prior to my edit:

1. That the "neologism" argument had been used to artificially allow only one point of view in this article (that the only use of JL was as an antisemitic slur).

2. That the article was pathetically disorganized.

Now that we are all past the "neologism" dark ages, I have made an edit that uses some new secondary and tertiary sources that discuss the term JL and I have reorganized the existing material around the other ("descriptive") use of the term.

Let me state this clearly and emphatically so that there is no misunderstanding and no claim that I have removed text: I have not removed any of the text from the previous version of the article; I have created a new organization and I have in some cases moved existing text so that it follows that organization. The only other change I have made is to add text cited to WP:RS.

If someone reverts my edits claiming that I have removed text then they are not telling the truth: and if they do this then THEY have themselves removed cited text that I added, contrary to WP policies and guidelines.

Jgui, it's not enough for material to be "cited for WP:RS" while ignoring all other policies. It must be relevant, and it must not consist of original research. I'm not sure why you consistently ignore this basic policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization

One of the primary goals of an editor of WP is to organize material. WP:NOR states: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

I therefore changed from this outline:

• History
• Usage

to this outline:

• Usage
  • Descriptive
    • Criticism
  • Antisemitic
    • Criticism

I removed the History section (although I kept all the material that was in that section by moving it) because it was not about what it claimed to be - it was not about the history of the term JL; it was instead about the history of antisemitism. I think a section that actually described the history of the term would be a wonderful addition, but I do not think we have the citations to add that yet. We would want to discuss the earliest uses of the term (it is clear to me from my research that it was first used Descriptively and for many decades without any criticism, but it looks like CasualObserver is interested in elucidating this so I'll leave that to him).

I can also see further expansion to this article, such as adding a Goals section (listing goals of Jewish lobby) and Accomplishments section (listing accomplishments of Jewish lobby), but again I don't think we have the citations to add these sections yet:

• Usage
  • Descriptive
    • Criticism
  • Antisemitic
    • Criticism
• History
• Goals
• Accomplishments

Other text added

As I said before, although I deleted no text with my edit, I did add some text to support the new organization. Namely:

I left the lede without modification (except to note that it is used descriptively in countries besides the US).

To the "Descriptive" section I added the OED2 citation and some Goldberg quotes cited to his speeches.

To the "Descriptive Criticism" section I added the Tivnan quote that was used previously.

I made a point of NOT modifying the "Antisemitism" section AT ALL, other than to move in the Antisemitism material from the History section, and to add a description of the Dawkins interview to provide the sentence from Cesarini with some context. I frankly think that the Antisemitism section could use an editor's help to better organize and present the material; but I am not willing to attempt to do so since I do not want to be accused of trying to twist the material in this section. Since the material is already organized by country I think it would be useful to add these section headers explicitely, but again I will leave that to another editor.

To the "Antisemitism Criticism" section I then added the M&W quote that Jayjg had previously removed, and I added a new quote from the Goldberg speech.

Unfortunately, finding examples of usage of the term is still original research, as this is clearly using the articles as primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested ground rules

In the past when I made changes to this article an edit war ensued based on Jayjg's claimed "neologism" argument for deleting cited text, and although I scrupulously followed all WP editing rules (summary HERE) nevertheless I ended up being sanctioned.

Needless to say, I do not want that to happen again. I will therefore propose that if these edits prove to be controversial, that EVERYONE should avoid even the appearance of edit-warring. If an edit war starts, then based on past experience I predict that Jayjg will restore his version of the article just before another admin comes in to block edits - and it will probably stay that way for a long time. So I recommend that if these changes are summarily deleted, and if there are editors that support their inclusion, that they refrain from reverting them - there is no advantage to be gained from reverting back and forth several times in a day - once a day with lots of discussion is plenty to keep changes to an article fresh.

It's WP:NOR whether or not it's a neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that we are limited to one revert at a time, per 2nd template above. Unfortunately that might include your whole re-write as one revert - AND administrators evidently can make even bigger reverts - i don't know if these go vs the current revert rules. I think your basic changes good. I broke arm on ice on 2-12 so not doing a lot of typing for next 4 weeks or would make some substantive changes/additions but will have to wait. Might do some minor cleanups tonight - as might others who support your efforts. As have said before, I think certain long quotes in refs that are WP:UNDUE need to be removed again. Carol MooreCarolmooredc {talk}

I'd suggest leaving it alone for a few days, rather than making minor changes now. Let's leave the article stable for a while, and discuss any needed changes here. --John Nagle (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you John, that is exactly what I am asking for. Unfortunately Carol made an edit, but I asked her to self-revert on her user page. I am not opposed to her edit; I just want to get the reaction of other editors to our edits one at a time, and not jointly. And Carol, I am not asking to limit reversions because we have to; I am asking to limit reversions and changes because it will be effective in achieving our goal of improving this article. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood "revert" thinking it means using revert to change back very recent changes. I didn't revert any of your recent changes, but made one set of new changes (I thought to longstanding text, but didn't check) and two changes previously discussed on talk. But otherwise will control self and go with the flow. Carol Moore 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Great, thanks! BTW, I agree with your changes, and like the way you clarified the sentence in the lede. Jgui (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it severely violated policy. I'll have to fix that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the new organization

Comments, please? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance. The division into "Descriptive" and "Antisemitic" seems to work. We have essentially the same material, but it reads better with this organization, and reflects the two main views on the subject. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for all the original research included, along with irrelevant quotes that have nothing to do with the article. As a simple example, a number of authors say the use of the term is antisemitic. So, editors here try to construct an argument to counter that, based on what Mearsheimer and Walt say about the Israel lobby, and in particular, those they claim deny the existence of an Israel lobby. This agenda-based style of editing that ignores basic policy is most disappointing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, no actually that is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. There are two writers quoted in the Antisemitic Criticism section that you deleted with your faulty claim of WP:NEO and WP:NOR. The first (Goldberg) quite clearly claims that the term is not inherently antisemitic, and that it is accurate and healthy to speak about the "Jewish lobby". The second (M&W) claim just as clearly that the lobby which is called both "Israel lobby" and "Jewish lobby" use as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby. There is no WP:SYN occurring - these are both quotations from single sources. So perhaps you could state CLEARLY why you deleted these quotes cited to secondary source WP:RS? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks better at first glance. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who insist on turning this article into a clone of Israel lobby in the United States

For those who insist on turning this article into a clone of Israel lobby in the United States, can they articulate how they think this article should differ from that one? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could explain exactly what you think this article is supposed to be, because frankly I'm baffled. And that totally obscure huge Vijay Prasad quote is a serious WP:WEIGHT problem. If that quote is supposed to indicate what this article is, please let me know, because I'll move on to other articles that are not just vehicles for a POV. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be about the term "Jewish lobby". I've worked quite diligently to try to insist the article only use secondary sources that discuss the term, rather than primary sources that use it (per WP:SYN), but it has been a gruelling, uphill battle. The article obviously can't be a WP:POVFORK of the Israel lobby in the United States, though various editors here are working diligently to turn it into that. Now, again, how do you think this article should differ from the Israel lobby in the United States article, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jay, your obfuscation is amazing and I consider it a civil word. You ask, Now, again, how do you' '[i.e. me, most of us] think this article should differ from the Israel lobby in the United States article, and why? That statement, coming from you is high-order bull and, I am afraid, less civil. Since I joined this page on Jan 24, you have never asked that question, or show me where you have and I will apologize profusely.

Yet I have asked a similar question of you at least three times and you have never openly acknowledged those requests. It regarded [#the split], if you will remember, oh ya, that was OR for you. If you would allow talk on the talk page, then you might learn from RSs that you have things backwards. RSs say that it was the Jewish lobby that was confronted first by the ‘Zionist lobby’ starting in 1897 with Hertzl and the founding of the ZOA.<Tivnan> RSs say that the J-side rejoiced in 1917 with Balfour and the Z-side strengthened their position and legitimacy. <Tivnan, Feuerlicht> RSs say that Truman was besieged by the Zionist lobby leading up to 1948 and recognition. <Lenczowski, Rubenberg, Truman> RSs say the Z-side didn’t call it the Israel lobby until the mid-late fifties. <Tivnan> RSs say that after 1967 the Eretz Israel Z-side became stronger than the I-side after 1967 and later, in 1977, became the gov’t of the I-side. The RSs say “The emancipation of the Jews brought forth two opposed movements: the cultural assimilation, begun by Moses Mendelssohn, and Zionism, founded by Theodore Herztl in 1896.” We can talk about this last issue as well in the discussions to follow, again, please engage us in open discussion. (signature got lost)CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

CO48, it's clear that people generally use the term "Jewish lobby" to mean "Israel lobby"; thus this article (if it should exist at all) should discuss the term, and the other lobby should actually discuss the "Israel lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One reason I hang in is fact people's lives can be ruined cause they use this phrase innocently, even as some other people use it proudly -- and such injustice must be fought to last breath. Of course, seceding from all the unions which condone such injustices might be easier ;-) Carol Moore 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, rather than bringing your off-wikipedia agendas here, could you instead please focus on improving the encyclopedia and upholding policy? It would also be helpful if you answered the question raised at the start of this section. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To provide a straight answer to Jayjg's question, the Israel lobby in the United States has many non-Jewish members. As the Wikipedia article points out, it now includes sizable parts of the Christian right, the neocons, and a big chunk of the Republican party. On the other hand, the Jewish lobby, as Goldberg and others point out, has a history of involvement in domestic US issues, from civil rights to abortion rights. There's certainly overlap, but on some issues, the traditional Jewish lobby and the Christian right are far apart. Thus, there's a distinction to be made. --John Nagle (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in your view, the "Jewish lobby" is some sort of "lobby" that overlaps with part of the Israel lobby? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And Jewish lobby does include Non-Israel related lobbying on issues of interest to Jews, though such references have been shot down as wp:or, though i think we can better argue now why the are not. Examples to come in May when better able physically to assert new material, rather than mostly react like now. Carol Moore 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Must have slipped his mind

FYI, although Jayjg did not mention it, he posted a notice about this article at the "No original research noticeboard" HERE. I left a response with some examples that were asked for. I think it would be good for us to chill on this JL article while the question is considered there, since it clearly will have an impact on this article. Please note that the "No original research noticeboard" is not concerned with anything other than a consideration of NOR, so other topics such as abusive editing, etc. should not be raised there. We shouldn't crowd the editors there - lets give them room and time to make their considerations, giving them info when asked and as needed. It is definitely NOT a good idea to try to steamroller them with more info than they ask for. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a comment there; please take a look. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also a reminder that at some point there may be mediation on this per Talk:Jewish_lobby#Note_to_all_-_current_mediation. Carol Moore 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Well I have to admit that I am a bit underwhelmed by the level of discussion on that page. I thought there might be experienced editors there who actually knew WP policy and were able to discuss it at a high level, leading to useful suggestions for editing behavior. I'm afraid that might not be the case, but the discussion is still early so I'll hold out hope.

John, personally I would not have introduced another deleted paragraph to consider (since the two that I already introduced have not really been discussed yet), nor would I have tried to elucidate motives or historical anologies for the conflict we've been seeing on this article. I certainly agree with much of what you said, but I fail to see how that helps us to make this article NPOV - which I believe is our common goal. My fear is that it is more likely to sidetrack the discussion into more of the same pointless timewasting we've seen here. I hope not, we shall see.

Carol, I'm afraid you have an overly optimistic view of mediation. In fact mediation with a POV-pusher just becomes a tedius exercise of stating your case and endlessly waiting for responses, then wading through reams of junk unrelated to the topic you want to discuss, and it often goes on for months, and often never reaches any resolution (since one of the parties just walks away). It seems to me that it is a last resort for a reason.

Anyway, I'm still hopeful that some good may come out of the NOR noticeboard. Jgui (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it must be "underwhelming" for you to realize that every person responding there (aside from John Nagle and Carolmooredc from this page) has pointed out the issues with your original research. Also, I'm concerned when you point out that, in mediating with you, I will have to face "a tedius[sic] exercise of stating your case and endlessly waiting for responses, then wading through reams of junk unrelated to the topic you want to discuss, and it often goes on for months, and often never reaches any resolution (since one of the parties just walks away)." However, despite your up front statements that you do not intend to mediate in good faith, I am still hoping you will change your mind and instead enter this mediation with upholding policy and improving the encyclopedia as your ultimate goal. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, ummm, it's nice you have such an overactive imagination, but it would be even nicer if you didn't misrepresent what I state. Where exactly did I say that I wouldn't mediate in good faith? On the other hand I certainly do appreciate the irony of your lecturing me on upholding policy. Thank you. Jgui (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comments there,

• Nandesuka (talk · contribs) wrote "Can we get a more concrete example of what you're talking about? That might make discussing this easier." in response to Jayjg. That editor has not commented since.
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) wrote "However, if the use is more dedicated i.e. if the articles to be used as sources are about the topic (in this case the Jewish lobby), and if they are high-quality mainstream sources (not sources out to make a political point), then I would say it's not OR, even if the articles are not about the use of the term per se."
• Blueboar (talk · contribs) wrote "I have a feeling that what you are discussing is a WP:SYNT situation... linking different sources that discuss various terms for lobbying activity all under the heading of "Jewish lobby". This was before anyone had replied substantively to Jayjg's objections. That editor has not commented since.
• IronDuke (talk · contribs) wrote "Jgui, I think your Walt and Mearsheimer quote is a good example of what not to use. W & M only use the term "Jewish Lobby" in a passing discussion of a group of individuals/groups who lobby for a range of policies."

So, of those four, only IronDuke expressed substantive support of Jayjg's position after both sides had been heard from, and that was with respect to a single quote. We have several better quotes than W & M, so that's not a major problem. --John Nagle (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing with today's updates:

• G-Dett (talk · contribs) wrote, after a long discussion on Pallywood: "I thus find myself in a peculiar position. I still think Jay is right on the matter of principle; I just wish he'd apply this principle – here and elsewhere – in a meaningful as opposed to tactical and pettifogging way. As for CarolMoore, jgui, John Nagle, et al, I'm not positive we're on the same page in terms of principle (the OED quote for example surely doesn't belong) but I'm positive they're working to improve the article, and I'm inclined to stand back and let them do so."
• Eleland (talk · contribs) wrote: "The article Jewish lobby should only use sources that discuss, in some detail, the influence of various Jewish lobbies around the world." That user also went on to question the mention of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in the article.
• CasualObserver'48 (talk · contribs) found a page in the Israel Handbook on "The Jewish Lobby in the USA"[29] , considers it suitable for inclusion, and asks for comments on that subject.

So that's where commentary over there is leading. There's little if any support for the major deletions made by Jayjg (talk · contribs), or for Jayjg's interpretation of WP:NOR, just some suggestions for minor adjustments to the article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored User:Jakew's comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of New User:jayjg version - Let's revert to 2/27 version

These changes continue the POV pushing against consensus. I think we have every right to revert back to 2/27 version==:

• link to protocols of elders of zion
• first mention of use is as conspiracy theory from 2003 article
• most neutral and descriptive uses have been purged with same dubious wp:or excuses
• criticism section superfluous since most of it is criticism
• deletion of lobbying template
• continued misuse of Walt and Mearsheimer
• continued deletion of material with dubious wp:or excuse

What do you all think?? Carol Moore 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think we have consensus for a revert back to 03:00, 27 February 2008 Jgui. Both here and at the "original research notice board", there's little support for the interpretation of policy expressed by Jayjg (talk · contribs) to justify his actions. We've discussed the issue and waited several days. So go ahead. --John Nagle (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The deed is done. Catchpole (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And it now looks more like it should. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see now that some of the things i criticized above actually were in the 2/27 version - most notably the link to protocols of elders of zion and footnote quote about it. FN9 - para 1 Why is there any need to mention it unless it describes or uses phrase jewish lobby?? Carol Moore 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What you call "most neutral and descriptive uses" was actually original research, and, as you said, much of what you objected to was in your own preferred version. I've reverted back to the better version, which didn't have nearly as much original research. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This revert is a mess if you look at it. And of course the article is very POV again. Meet user:jaakobou here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Evidence. We should to go back to the one revision at a time format since these big "reverts" are an excuse to make all sorts of changes and can be hard to keep track of whose reverting what which time withuut a staff. Can slowly create appropriate sections and name later. Also time to generate some good quotes of descriptive phrases of neutral uses in the real world. Since who knows what is happening with "mediation." Hopefully by end of March I'll be two handed again! Carol Moore 03:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I disapprove of this method of "solving a conflict" by intimidation. I've angered a few strongly opinionated editors (several of them, repeated violators of policy) in the past but it's clearly offtopic. Your bringing up of Arbcom evidence with a "meet Jaakobou" title feels like a smear campaign to bully me out of presenting my opinion. If you're so keen on going into the Arbcom, I'd request you pay attention to Decorum, Editorial process and Dispute resolution.

Do you have any content based discussion to present or inquire? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See "Please justify your deletions" below. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Prashad quote

This quote still has way too much WP:WEIGHT. What Prashad is actually addressing here (and in other writings) is his opposition to Hindu nationalists in India and their developing relationship to Jewish Lobby groups as well as to the Likud. Prashad's discussion is not scholarly, it is purely polemical, and he is attempting to minimize the influence of the lobby in order to undercut the Hindu right wing's alliance with them and with (at the time) Sharon. Elsewhere, Prashad, an intellectual leader of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, has argued that the Jewish Lobby cant be powerful because to think so "does not sit well for a Marxist framework." Hence Prashad has been arguing that the strength of Sharonism is what's key in US support for Israel, not the JL. Given the polemical character of Prahshad's piece and it's peripheral relationship to the actual history of the JL, and the fact that his quote is lifted out of context from what he is actually discussing/polemicizing presenting (the CPI-M line), and regardless of what one makes of his argument, this is way too weighty. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

With/if that is the case, it may be best to copy the quote to Israel lobby in the US, talk page with your analysis, so it is not lost for future reference as to what outsiders of the US consider the Israeli lobby to be, especially the last para about Sharon. I say that because the RSs (mine anyway) tend to indicate that it has been the 'Revisionists'/'Likudists', since Begin's election in 1977, that have moved the 'Jewish lobby' and AIPAC to where it is today. I guess that is also as much a reason to leave it here, but it doesnt say that now and appears to have been POVishy polished. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Prashad is somewhat of a weird source, but I'd leave that in until we find something better. I've been looking. Searching Google for '"Jewish lobby" antisemitism', the first hit is this Wikipedia article. Then there's this Israeli Insider article, but it's more of a blog. Then there's a blog entry about another blog entry on an Russian blog. There's an article by a Guardian columnist, but it's arguing the opposing position. Then there's an London Review of Books article about Walt and Mershiemer, but they've been covered already. Other references also cite W & M.

The ADL has a 2002 cartoon from Syria "asserting the power of the Jewish Lobby in the United States". But the cartoon doesn't use the term; the ADL is using the term. There's a blog which cites an article by Bernard Lewis, who is a recognized scholar in the field. But he argues that talking about a Jewish lobby isn't antisemitic.

Finally, we find something. Anti-Semitism in the Official Egyptian Press Spring 1998-1999. This has a quote from an article in Al-Aharam: "the main apparatus for the Jews to control the world is the international Jewish lobby which works for Israel."

So the clearly antisemitic references to "Jewish lobby" which Google can find are from countries that have had shooting wars with Israel. We're going to need to search beyond Google to get some better cites. --John Nagle (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Found some more promising sources, by using the search engine at CAMERA.

• Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) However, the CAMERA blog article [30], which uses the term "Jewish lobby", links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian [31] which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."
• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying " “People are scared in this country [the US] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.” "[32]
• CAMERA quotes David Bar-Illan of the Jerusalem Post saying about Mike Wallace: "Wallace, in Bar-Illan’s words, “portrayed the ‘Jewish lobby’ as an insidious, all-powerful, multi-headed Washington Svengali manipulating the U.S. Congress and administration.”"

But in all these sources (the Tutu quote excepted) (and this seems to be true of all the ones the CAMERA search engine finds), the term "Jewish Lobby" is being used by someone from the pro-Israel/Jewish side.

We're down to looking at David Duke's web site. Now there, we actually have a hostile use of the term: "Those at the centers of political influence in the United States and other nations are aware of the intense power of the Israeli lobby. The Jewish Lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America’s congress is in the service of a foreign nation." [33] Duke is just using "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" interchangeably there. This is Duke writing on Duke's web site, so it's a self-published primary source. Besides, observing that the Israel lobby in the US is powerful isn't antisemitic; AIPAC itself admits its power.

The quote from Bishop Desmond Tutu above is also quoted by the BBC [34]. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying in Boston "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust." CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid.

Can somebody find a better cite than these? I'm to some extent writing for the other side here, and may not have the right references handy. --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, can anyone find better citations from reliable sources of the use of the term in an antisemitic context? There must be something out there. --John Nagle (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please justify your deletions

Jaakobou (talk · contribs): Please justify, in detail, citing specific reasons, each of the following cited references deleted in your edit: ( Jaakobou - Revision as of 21:36, 2 March 2008 Material violates WP:NOR, previous material was more balanced and did not violate policy.). You have claimed that Wikipedia policy was violated and must now justify that claim.

1. The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members.(Seven Days, Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2004)
2. (A little louder, please, Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2005)
3. (Continental divide, Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2002)
4. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".(The Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1074, 2nd Edition, 1989)
5. J.J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the Jewish-American newspaper The Forward, writes that in the United States the "Jewish lobby" was thrust into prominence following the Nixon Administration's sharp shift of American policy towards significant military and foreign aid support for Israel following the 1973 war. Goldberg notes that the "Jewish lobby" predated the Nixon years by decades, playing a leadership role in formulating American policy on issues such as civil rights, separation of church and state, and immigration, guided by a liberalism that was a complex mixture of Jewish tradition, the experience of persecution, and self interest.(Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Basic Books, 1996.) In a speech in 2004, Goldberg stated: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations. The Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah, of course, AIPAC.(American Foreign Policy and The Jewish Lobby, J.J. Goldberg, Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, March 22, 2004)
6. The late Jewish scholar Arthur Hertzberg writes that following the Six-Day War, "[T]he "Jewish lobby" was no longer spoken of in whispers, and its official leaders no longer pretended that they advanced their cause only by gentle persuasion."(Arthur Hertzberg. Jewish Polemics. Columbia University Press, 1992)
7. For example the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community."("The Media, Stereotypes and the Jewish Lobby". Retrieved February 2, 2008.)
8. Edward Tivnan concurs, writing in his 1988 book The Lobby that the "Jewish lobby" in the United States "had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,”…" (Edward Tivnan. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN 0671668285. Preface, p8.)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole long section on the NOR noticeboard explaining why the material you inserted is Original Research: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Providing_examples_of_use_of_a_term

Outside editors there (not the partisans on the Jewish lobby page) agreed that it was original research, including things like the abuse of a peripheral mention by the Oxford English dictionary and relying on sources that just use the term, but don't describe it. Sentences like "Stephen Walt and co-author John Mearsheimer go further, claiming that a false cry of "antisemitism" is sometimes used as a tactic to stifle criticism of Israel." are pure original research - who says Walt and Mearsheimer "go further", and anyway, they aren't talking about the term "Jewish lobby" - they are actually talking about the Israel lobby, and they say that people deny the existence of the Israel lobby, not that they try to stifle criticism of Israel.

As Jay pointed out, WP:SYN applies here:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We'd like to hear what you have to say, not what Jayjg (talk · contribs) says. His arguments on the "no original research" noticeboard have been discredited, and few take him seriously any more. You deleted referenced citations from about five editors, and that takes some strong arguments to justify. Would you like to try again? Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile you have failed to clean up this mess on bottom of article:

Criticism

Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) ETC

Also 2 references to Hirsh messy. Just stuff I noticed in passing; over all it remains very POV; I hadn't gotten around to addressing alleged wp:or 02 2/27 and 3/1 less POV version. Carol Moore 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'd still like to hear more from Jaakobou (talk · contribs) to justify his deletions. All he's done so far is echo old claims of Jayjg (talk · contribs). He hasn't addressed his own specific deletions. He hasn't provided any substantive justification for deleting properly cited references. Wikipedia's "original research" policy is not applicable to such deletions.

None of the deletions mentioned were about W & M, and none of them were about summarization or drawing of conclusions. I didn't add most of those eight references, either; those are mostly the work of other, multiple editors.

This discussion should have taken place before the deletions by Jaakobou (talk · contribs). We're under ArbCom orders not to revert here without discussion first. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, John, it appears that an experienced editor just walks through and makes an edit wthout justification; he also has no recent involvement in the talk page. It just doesn't seem right, or forthright, either. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Jaakobou's revert vs consensus - and worse his failure to fix his html errors (despite 2 requests) and which i could not correct either, I am reverting to earler version and adding good changes made since then. Except Gee comment as wp:undue. I'm not saying that version is perfect, only more WP:NPOV Let's work on any alleged wp:OR on a source by source basis and not these edit war mass reversions! Carol Moore 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thank you for your support, and I hope your arm is feeling better; obviously your right index finger is sufficiently operative. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did not put it back properly til just now. These mass reversions can leave one confused and lead to big boo boos! Feel free to make sure i didn't miss anything else. All five right hand fingers working - luckily broke left arm. But tire easily. Carol Moore 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

When three individuals agree, and three others disagree, that's not really "consensus", is it? Also, the version you prefer still suffers from the egregious violations of WP:NOR that plague this article. In addition, you've deleted the opinion of Henry Gee, for example, senior editor at Nature - there doesn't seem to be anything "undue" about that, except "undue" removal of good sources. I'm going to have to restore the better version for now (fixing the html errors), pending the mediation, and will be adding additional relevant non-policy violating material in the future. I'll leave out the Prasad material, but can you explain what issue you have with it? Also, Carol has, in effect, conceded that the term is a neologism, when she tagged a 100 year old term as a "neologism".[35] Anyway, in the future please try to ensure your edits comply with policy, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The rough consensus of most editors since this article was created was that it is WP:POV emphasizing claims the phrase is anti-semitic and using questionable claims of WP:OR to delete all WP:RS claims the phrase is used descriptively. Shall I make a chart?? This is the real/more troubling violation of policy in this article. The new format is far less POV and each quote should be dealt for wp:or or other problems on a case by case basis, not by deleting new format in mass reverts. It is difficult for us to do so when you keep imposing you POV agenda. So I'm reverting back to the new format

Also any opinion on wp:neo I expressed in another article does not have to be defended in this article, a wiki guideline I read somewhere. I stand by what has been said by various parties on this issue over time. [though it should be noted the first sentence includes assertion new antisemitism refers to a "new form of antisemitism on the rise in the 21 century" - and last time i checked the 21st century only a full 7 years long... Someone fix misleading intro that makes article fit into category:neologism?] Carol Moore 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I see that in this edit, Jayjg (talk · contribs) deleted about nine citations from reliable sources, yet claimed the edit was deleting "original research". The deletions have already been reverted, which seems reasonable enough. We've dealt with that issue previously, so we don't need to re-argue it here.

As I've said before, we could use some better citations for the use of the term in an an antisemitic context. Devote yourself to that, if you will. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been explained both here and on the NOR board why the material being inserted consisted of original research. We've "dealt with the issue previously", and agreed that it was original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored improved version of article with respect to WP:NOR and writing style. Doright (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific before performing big reverts. Note that you have removed at least nine citations from reliable sources while claiming "original research". If you wish to claim "original research" when removing citations, considerable more specificity is necessary. Otherwise, it's just edit-warring. --John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Can't see the quotation used, but it looks like another example of a use of the term, rather than a description of it. WP:NOR, quite obviously, as has already been long agreed.
2. Same as #1.
3. Same as #1.
4. The problem with the OED material was explained on the WP:NORN; see, for example, [36]
5. Suffers from the definitional issue of this article; is it about the "Israel lobby"? If so, there is another article already discussing it, we don't need two.
6. Not particularly informative, and has the same problems as item #5.
7. Again, this article is about the term "Jewish lobby"; we already have an article about the Israel lobby in the United States, we don't need a WP:POVFORK. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you keep removing the material from Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature, who actually discusses the term, rather than simply using it. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism template

Why was this removed? Yahel Guhan 04:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had an opinion above and removed it. Others feel it should be below lobbying template which probably is a good compromise. Carol Moore 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Deleting Third Paragraph 3/9 Version

I'm starting to go through this, despite discouraging prospect of more reverts. Made a few prev. discussed or non-controversial changes today.

This paragraph is unnecessarily redundant to text below it in this 3/9/08 version and I'd like to delete it. (However, if reverted to Jayjg's POV version, it is needed as at least a minor NPOV intro.) I don't know if there are any important references only referenced here:The meaning of the term "Jewish lobby" is disputed by a number of commentators and on several grounds. Some state that, when referring to American groups, it is an inaccurate label for a group of political organizations which do not represent most American Jews, which include many non-Jews, which may advocate a diversity of conflicting political positions and whose primary concern is policy towards Israel.[3][4] Others argue that the term is antisemitic when used to attribute a manipulative and all-powerful character to Jews.[5][6][7][8] Carol Moore 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not sure what version is being referred to here. Is the italicized text going in, or being taken out? --John Nagle (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting but perplexing quote

Of course, it would be debated which category it goes into - but at least it is an explicit description: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23360098-5013871,00.html Labor split over Israel support Paul Maley | March 12, 2008 ...Labor MP Julia Irwin...In 2003, Ms Irwin called for UN intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and read an email to the parliament that described the Jewish lobby in Australia as "the most implacable, arrogant, cruel and powerful lobby in the country". The head of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, dismissed Ms Irwin's remarks, saying Israel's critics in the ALP were confined to the party's fringes. Carol Moore 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not sure what to make of it either. Read an email from whom? --John Nagle (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter who wrote email, just that impression given (from context of rest of article) that an MP agreed. I think this goes under the category of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I don't think it necessarily should be included, just noting it seems to meet a certain criteria. Carol Moore 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'd either leave that out, or dredge through the reports of the Australian parliament to find the actual author of the e-mail and more context. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead issues (1)

The second paragraph reads at current: "The phrase is sometimes used to refer loosely to various pro-Israel lobbying groups and individuals in the United States other countries like the United Kingdom and Australia" (sourced to [37]). Can someone show me the exact quote for this interpritation? I cannot seem to locate it. Yahel Guhan 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that came from an attempt to make the lead less US-centric. It used to just mention the US, but we had a quote from B'nai B'rith in Australia, and the style suffered a bit when it was shoehorned in. The language does need improvement; the first sentence isn't even a vlaid sentence. Carol, would you take care of that, please?

We have several news stories about the Jewish lobby in the UK; just found another one: UK: Lobby successfully advocates for Jewish art "British Jewish lobby successfully pushes for amendment to bill aimed at making it easier for British museums, galleries to borrow art work from foreign countries, often concerned their work will be confiscated by British authorities claiming work was stolen from Jews during Holocaust". We have cites about Jewish lobbies in the US, the UK, Australia, and maybe France and Canada. Beyond those countries, we don't have much.

One organized Jewish lobby in France is called "Union des Patrons et des professionnels Juifs de France"[38]. Their "About" page says "It is the first french jewish organization implementing effective lobbying action in favour of the Jewish communauty."[39] They're apparently feuding with the more traditional and less politically active Jewish community in France. (When looking at their site, note that the English section has only a small fraction of the content.)

So many cites, so little time. --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple more refs added. Carol Moore 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You're right to be concerned, Yahel Guhan. This sentence is the typical original research that keeps being forced into this article. There is no source that says the phrase "Jewish lobby" is "sometimes used to refer loosely to various pro-Israel lobbying groups and individuals in the United States other countries like the United Kingdom and Australia"; rather, that's the thesis of some Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You actually are right about my recent entries; much of lead redundant to content actually. Since can't access easily 3 Jerusalem Post articles (Seven Days, A little louder, please, Continental divide) would help to have actual terms. Otherwise now that there has been a clearer description of complaints from Jayjg, give us a chance to correct or argue. Carol Moore 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Try here first please. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List self for mediation

Mediator Shell wrote: Ok, looks like there's some feeling that things need to be worked out further. Can we get a roll call here of editors who still wish to be involved in a mediation? Here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby#Checking_in_on_the_case Carol Moore 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please justify your insertions

Please justify insertions into the article, keeping in mind that we cannot have a WP:POVFORK of Israel lobby in the United States, nor can we violate WP:SYN:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Also, please realize that describing sources that simply use the term is inevitably original research. Finally, please explain why you keep removing the material from Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature, who actually discusses the term, rather than simply using it? Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please describe wp:or on case by case basis in stead of mass reverts to POV version. Gee is just POV overkill. Carol Moore 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Done above. Please justify insertions on a case by case basis instead of mass reverts to POV version. Also, please relate the phrase "Gee is just POV overkill" to specific policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Found criticisms later and made a bunch of changes where I definitely agree. Others I know others defend and will let them do so.
• Wikipedia:Pov#A_simple_formulation: 'A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.Carol Moore 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Case by case basis, please. Also, including unreliable sources or original research is not the solution for your imagined POV problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's Changes Summarized

I made changes I thought were legit Jayjg criticims; where not sure, asked questions or just left for others to defend. My main goal to retain this NPOV structure and make sure contents wiki legit on case by case basis.

• per past talk deleted redundant material from lead and/or integrated to later material
• hopefully john will povide 3 quotes about jewish lobby in other countries
• I can see problem with oxford quote but will look at john’s jusification elsewhere
• Through out removed unnecessary summarization that allows charges of wp:or
• as i've said before, I agree this is not place to retrace history of israel lobby; however if showing how phrase jewish lobby used over time happens to trace part of that history, no problema
• please find page numbers for Goldberg or it risks deletion; Arthur Hertzberg does seem redundant and I eliminated (no page # also)
• Perhaps Tivan is more descriptive than critical?
• I think there are a few good descriptive quotes we’ve forgotten about that need adding

Carol Moore 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm trying to find page numbers for the Goldberg quote. I didn't put that quote in; Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs) did. But I have Goldberg's book handy and am looking. He certainly says many things similar to that quote, especially on page 24, where Goldberg writes "For at least a half century, the organized Jewish community has played a decisive role in advancing America's evolving liberal agenda of tolerance and fair play". Goldberg then goes on to give details, at length. This is part of a whole chapter on "Not for Myself - Liberalism and the Jewish agenda." Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs) may have been summarizing chapter 2. We can go to a quote farm, if anyone can make a case that Goldberg is being poorly summarized. --John Nagle (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do a better summary, perhaps with a few quotes. He's a good source. Carol Moore 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi Carol. Please be specific about the changes you've made. For example, you have again removed Henry Gee, editor of Nature, who actually discusses the term, rather than uses it. That, obviously , cannot stand. As well, you see the problem your original research titles case - you don't know whether "Tivan is more descriptive than critical", because the whole "descriptive" category is original research. Please start from the current, non-policy violating version, and describe the changes you'd like to make, rather than simply inserting original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee response below. The first major re-write which removed any material I believe was Feb 26 Jgui. Have you asked him/her why s/he deleted any material?? I've only cleaned up later versions of that.

Re: "descriptive" section, maybe we just have to find the word for the neutral description that can't br attacked as WP:OR. The larger issue remains an honest cooperative effort to produce an article which recognizes [WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view]] (On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.) Carol Moore 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

That was easy! Added sentnece to existing quote The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community." The article notes that: "The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power."REF:name=ADC-Australia (Of course it would be nice to find a quote that says that accumulating evidence of undue influence by any group is not necessarily bigotted. Bet M&W have one - or should!!) Carol Moore 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Hey, you're selling "Henry Gee" sorta short; he's billed by your source as "Nature Editor, Norfolk resident and sometime 'garage-band monster' Henry Gee and his amazing unicycling giraffes." Whatta guy! And whatta source – a blog linking to a podcast on the garage-band monster's "online scratching post." And whatta surprise, finally, to find Jay posting more bullshit.--G-Dett (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Henry Gee you're referring to?

Henry Gee is a Senior Editor of Nature and the editor of Nature’s award-winning SF series Futures. He has a B.Sc. in Genetics and Zoology from the University of Leeds, and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Cambridge. At Nature he is responsible for aspects of integrative and comparative biology including palaeontology, anthropology, comparative anatomy, biomechanics, systematics, macroevolution, evolutionary developmental biology, archaeology and Aliens from Outer Space. He is the author of several nonfiction books including Jacob’s Ladder: The History of the Human Genome, Deep Time: Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution, The Science of Middle-earth, Before The Backbone: Views on the Origin of the Vertebrates and A Field Guide to Dinosaurs (with Luis V. Rey) and a couple of abortive attempts at fiction. He has edited two non-fiction collections Shaking The Tree: Readings from Nature in the History of Life and Rise of the Dragon: Readings from Nature in Chinese Paleontology, and the SF anthology Futures from Nature. He has recently taken on the editorship of Mallorn, the Journal of the Tolkien Society.[40]

Also, please take WP:CIVIL more seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the zoology, science fiction, abortive-novelist garage-band monster guy with the unicycling giraffes and the online scratching post you're quoting from. This from an editor who rejects books published by University of Chicago Press and celebrated by the New York Review of Books because the author has the wrong PhD.

I'll know you're on board with WP:CIVIL when you stop trolling everybody with bullshit.--G-Dett (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, that's really enough. I am formally requesting that you abide by WP:CIVIL, and stop using every comment to insult me with phrases like "whatta surprise, finally, to find Jay posting more bullshit" and "when you stop trolling everybody with bullshit." Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Profanity's a bit unusual for me, and I'm happy to quit that habit as fast as I picked it up; nevertheless I'm formally requesting that you stop trolling talk pages with intentionally specious nonsense.--G-Dett (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, do not use Talk: pages of articles to make further disparaging comments about me. I am quite serious here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And do you think I'm kidding? When you reject a fêted book published by Univ of Chicago Press because the author has the wrong PhD, and then come here pushing your zoologist's blog, there is only one conclusion about how "serious" you are about the sourcing criteria you invoke. You've given your fellow editors several excellent reasons to cease altogether assuming your good faith. The number of editors who are genuinely sick of your games is substantial and growing. Use Talk: pages for their intended purpose.--G-Dett (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see we've had another large revert by Jayjg (talk · contribs), removing multiple citations without prior discussion. We'll have to put back those citations again, I expect. --John Nagle (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the Gee issue, that quote probably should stay in, although it might be moved to a section collecting quotes by advocates for Israel who make the claim that the use of the term "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic. --John Nagle (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see he's gone and deleted relevant material from Goldberg, editor of Forward, author of a major book on the "Jewish lobby" and prominent advocate of the term's legitimacy. Same edit where he adds the zoologist/sci-fi writer's blog/podcast.--G-Dett (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, G-, it is good to have you back. Civility is a two-way street; and you seem to be headed in the correct and proper direction, based on the on-coming drivers I see on this road. I should note that I have never had to, or wanted to, comment following 11 colons of indents, but at my age, I'm hoping to keep the one colon I have healthy. I don't know what nationality the editors are, but under these conditions, in American parlance, BS (spelled out, or abbreviated) is as much a term of endearment as it is a valid statement of objection. It is somewhat like, well, "you're not not fast, you're not slow, your are half-fast." CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just handle this algebraically, and let the commentaries by or about Gee and Dawkins cancel each other out; especially given the prevalence of James Watson syndrome--the chronic tizzies suffered by many genetics-related scientists whose heads tend to gravitate towards their behinds when they attempt to analyze stuff larger than an amino acid sequence. Of course, no doubt readers are eagerly awaiting the opinings of zoologists and geneticists on what's up with the Jewish Lobby. Maybe we can have a link at the bottom to "Fascinating views of select scientists on the matter." Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee is commenting on the Guardian article that's commenting on Dawkins. So how about putting the Gee quote back in, at the end of the Dawkins paragraph, like this:, Henry Gee, a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science writer, said that he found Dawkins's words "frightening": "However, the term ‘Jewish lobby’ is deeply loaded, and has been used by anti-Semites to raise the age-old canard that the world is controlled by a global Jewish conspiracy, an accusation used by many regimes, ancient and modern, for discrimination against the Jews.[21] Gee is a popularizer of science; he's written "A field guide to dinosaurs" and "The Science of Middle-Earth: Explaining The Science Behind The Greatest Fantasy Epic Ever Told!" --John Nagle (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think use of Gee just makes the article that much more unbalanced. Whole Dawkins incident rediculously over blown in importance. Overall makes article unbalanced and POV. Carol Moore 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}