Talk:Palestine lobby in the United States

Continuation of discussion from Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

I've moved an old version of this page to US lobby against Israeli Occupation where this lobby can be treated in an WP:NPOV way. This permits this article to remain in the way it has evolved, to focus on the use of the "anti-Israel lobby" term. This obviates the need for a move. Caveat: "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" is not perhaps the best title, but it's the best I can come up with which meets WP:NPOV. Better suggestions welcome. Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the new page needs more work reframing for WP:NPOV, away from defining these groups in the words and from the point of view of their political opponents, which had also coloured the emphasis and choice of who to highlight. Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you did this - it seems precipitous. I was hoping for consensus among the editors here before making such a move.

Now that it is done, I believe the title you chose is not successful. The occupation is not the only issue on which these groups lobby. There is also the matter of US aid to Israel, allegations of human rights violations by Israel arms sales to Israel, arms sales to other Middle East countries (which the Israeli lobby opposes), and more. The title which had been discussed was "Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States", which I believe is a more accurate title for the information contained in the article.

But let's continue the discussion on the new page. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the new title isn't so bad. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. Just searched "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got 1 non-wiki link and "lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got two non-wiki links so the name could be challenged on that basis.

I removed some of the POV stuff from the anti-Israel lobby article. I think the person who created it has a responsibility to clean it up - remove hostile sources, add more neutral ones -- and make it NPOV. At this point you just have created work for others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I cannot agree with your removal of criticisms of these lobbyists by Israeli supporters. The political activities of these organizations are controversial - that is exactly why they are political. To remove criticisms is not to be npov, but the opposite - it is to present only one side of a dispute to which there are two sides.

Let's discuss these things on the talk page before going bashing through the article. Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Lead

The article title is acceptable to me. One thing to consider, some lobby groups consider the "Israeli Occupation" to apply to the entire landmass that comprises modern day country of Israel (ie: Israel's government is occupying Palestine), not just the West Bank/Gaza/territories. That should be reflected as well, pending appropriate RS. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought - groups that oppose the whole "colonial project." And of course just implementing the right of return would scale back Israel quite a bit. I'm willing to research those who criticize its use of nuclear weapons. Will it need a TOPIC section for things like WMDs and other discrete topics?

The important thing is to get rid of all the "anti-Israel" sources that are predominantly negative, with little neutral WP:RS information. Which has not been done yet. (I at least took ant-Israel out of lead.) Thus the POV TAG.

So I'm rethinking my stance against it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not the important thing. Please read my post above. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

I think this is a better title, but there might be an even better one. —Ashley Y 06:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a better title. It is worse.

The article is about a shift in political power centers in the United States. It is not strictly about the Israeli occupation. There are many issues on which these groups lobby, and on which the Israeli lobbyists lobby on the opposite side, of which the occupation is only one. There is financial and military aid, both to Israel and to the Arab countries; there is the issue of human rights. There is a lot of money involved. To remove the focus of the article from the arena of US national policy and politics to a focus on the Israeli occupation is, I believe, a mistake.

But never mind what I think. The worst part of this rename is that it was done without consultation. I was hoping that we could create a new editing culture for articles about the dispute, one where cooperation and discussion prevailed over edit warring; where discussion on the talk page preempted, or at least preceded, precipitous cases of being bold.

There are two ways this page can go. It can follow in the footsteps of Gaza War, Muhammad al-Durrah and other pages where battle, chaos, and consequent poor quality are the standard. Or we can try to work together to create an article that is really good and meaningful. The choice is ours. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some things: (a) this was not a move. The original page exists. (b) this is not a fork - the content is radically different, coming from a radically different old version of that page, and there is a clear difference of focus (on the subject, vs on the term) (c) "Israeli Occupation" may usefully be construed very broadly, and cover a range of Israeli policies related to sustaining the occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories. (d) US support for Israel in ways relevant to the occupation could be covered here too, or else in a separate article (e) separate articles can still be created for related topics, eg Opposition to the Israel lobby in the US, a move still under debate at Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think. If people prefer the original title, we can move it back. It's a wiki, it's really no big deal. —Ashley Y 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Move it back where? The content came from an old, very different version of the Anti-Israel lobby article, which still exists! Rd232 ^talk 10:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article amounts to an original essay. If there's anything useful to merge somewhere, fine, but this should be deleted. csloat (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean and why you think that? Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation grounds for AfD?

To be bring up another issue that supports quickly re-writing this article to be about the topic from more neutral sources: I think this article could be AfD'd because it IS a whole sale copying of an earlier version of the Anti-Israel lobby in the United States article. I have taken out some of the more irrelevant/POV stuff but the rest of the text remains largely the same as the original copied material. I know there are wikipedia purists who claim that copying from one article to another like that is a copyright violation and grounds for AfD. So those who wanted the article to exist should get busy.

Also please don't forget the article Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis which has a lot of info - but which also is quite an overlap with this article (as it should be written). CarolMooreDC (talk)

This is not a copyright violation, the original edit clearly marked where the material was taken from, so with that attribution this material is freely used here. nableezy - 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to copy that text for the next time someone yells copyright violation for copying or moving a paragraph!! :-)But I would appreciate some recognition of my point that the text needs a lot of work NOT to be a mere copy of that article. Not to mention the merge issue, since some would like to take all the negative BLP violating stuff from the original article that is still in here and merge it all back to Anti-Israel lobby article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You do have to say where it was copied from, see WP:SPLIT#Procedure. I am not commenting on the text, just the copyvio question. Dealing with this is too aggravating for me to spend any more time on it. nableezy - 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I hear you on both counts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove merge tag

Given that the name has changed with "lobby" deleted, this tag SHOULD be removed and I will do so soon, especially given that the tagger hasn't bothered to explain their reasoning, including in light of the change. Any problems? Please explain. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With changes in article, and hearing no discussion at all from whoever put up the tag, removed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All sources must refer explicitly to opposition to occupation

Random information, as well as sources that do not mention that topic as part of their discussion of the group, obviously are off topic. So a clean up of sources will be done soon. Also those that do will have references to the groups position on occupation made explicit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

US campaign to end the Israeli occupation

Finally got around to looking at the article about the organization, since it occurred to me that this group is the back bone of the anti-occupation movement: The US campaign to end the Israeli occupation is a U.S.-based coalition of more than 250 member organizations[1] working to influence United States policy as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So expect to see it take a prominent role in new article, once I delete all the material that doesn't mention groups are "anti-occupation." CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This article now bears some relation to the title with all irrelevant material that is not sourced to material on groups against the occupation removed. Refs have to be fixed up and more WP:RS information to give a better over view of the actual anti-occupation movement is needed. But at least the article isn't a total embarrassment as of tonight. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Palestine lobby in the United States → Opposition in the United States to the Israeli occupation – This was the article's original title from 2009 to April 2022, when it was changed to the current title of "Palestine lobby in the United States". While I can understand the desire for maintaining parallel naming conventions for this article and Israel lobby in the United States, we run into the problem that several of the organizations described at this article are not lobby organizations, nor is it clear that the gestalt pro-Palestine/anti-Israel/anti-Israeli-occupation movement in the US is best described as a lobby. My first instinct was to retitle this article Pro-Palestine organizations in the United States, but this leads to a different problem: the organizations listed here have been narrowly selected for their opposition to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories post-1967, but there exist organizations in the US that are pro-Palestinian but do not frame their support in terms of the 1967 borders (whether that's by explicitly calling for the dissolution of the Israeli state, by supporting Palestinian right of return, or by supporting other Palestinian causes not directly related to the territorial possessions of Israel). My sense is that if this article is to be about groups that explicitly oppose the Israeli control of the Israeli-occupied territories as defined at that article, the old title is preferable, and reverting to it is what I am primarily proposing here. That having been said, it may be more encyclopedic to rescope this article to be either about pro-Palestine groups, or pro-Palestine lobbying groups, in which case either Pro-Palestine organizations in the United States or the current title, respectively, would be the best titles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CONCISE. Showiecz (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Israeli Occupation" is not a neutral term. See WP:Neutral. Haiiya (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR

I removed all organizations that did not have any sourcing support that they are a part of a Palestine lobby in the US. That left no organizations. Using for example WRMEA articles as evidence that they are a part of some lobby is straightforward OR. nableezy - 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, per my concerns listed in the section above, this article wasn't originally written to be about a "Palestine lobby", but rather groups that oppose the post-1967 occupation. As you can see above, other editors didn't really engage with the broader question of the article's scope, but as it stands I'm not even sure that "Palestine lobby in the US" is a notable topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Ive been looking for sources that discuss a "Palestine lobby" and am coming up with thin gruel. And yeah I see the move request generated a low level of engagement with the argument. This is just one in a series of tit for tat articles, which wouldnt be as a big a problem if there werent so many on the same topic. Anti-Israel lobby in the United States and this arguably should just be in Arab lobby in the United States. nableezy - 20:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support a merge along those lines. If editors are able to find solid in-depth coverage of Palestine lobby, Anti-Israel lobby, etc. it can always be spun back out into an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

article name and alternative name

I recently made the USCPR page and saw it mentioned here. I've gone and tried to use similar wording and also added an alternative name "pro-Palestine advocacy group".

There are very few titles that explicitly call for a Palestinian lobby and the few that do are usually a bit biased in one direction (lobby has a bad connotation, i suppose). I thought to include an alternative name as well, though I am curious, based on the topics above, if we should do something else instead. homo momo (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)