Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Archive1 Archive2

Merge; POV forks

I would suggest that all articles about this subject are merged into one article wich can describe all signficant POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the debate around this paper (this article is about a paper entitled, coincidentally "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"), because of its intensity and breath, remain in this, its own, article. This article actually does cover the thesis of the article and the response in an NPOV fashion, at least in my opinion -- there is a long and detailed response and criticism section. --Ben Houston 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. Both articles are very long. —Ashley Y 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Don't merge. 1) The article sits distinctly on its own. 2) It is large and complex to merge into the other article. Continue the debate on this page. (How is 'mergin' a word? Do you mean merging?) Dogru144 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Kalb

Marvin Kalb is a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, founding director (now Senior Fellow) of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy there, Faculty Chair for the Kennedy School's Washington programs, and Edward R. Murrow Professor of Press and Public Policy from 1987 to 1999. This on top of his distinguished career in journalism. He is not an "administrator", and his opinion is certainly notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zogby Poll confirms factual Basis

JAYJG deleted the following w/o discussion. I believe it belongs in the article b/c much of the criticism is that Walt & Mearsh have no factual basis for their findings

• According to a scientific public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06. 40% of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question was used.

• "Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"[1]

• Best Wishes Will314159 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Polls pretty much find what they want to find, particularly Zogby polls. In any event, the poll was not about this paper. This article is about Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, it's not a debating board for discussing whether or not there really is a nefarious Israeli lobby controlling America. Please avoid trying to use original research to refute sourced arguments or statements you find listed in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is merely about the paper -- not about the border subject. I have instead added the poll to the correct article on the general topic: Israel lobby in the United States. Me and Tom harrison adjusted the wording slightly to be more precise. --Ben 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks Ben. Will314159 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No thanks,Ben. The Zogby poll ( I bet you have little problem with Zogby polls that you agree with ) states the American public's opinion on the subject - even though I would guess that a very small percent have ever heard of much less read this paper. Shows how little new ground the paper reached, nothing that the majjority of Americans didn't already know. Didn't you know this already, Ben?

"Reaction to the reception" lends unfair weight

The "Reaction to the reception" section reads a lot like another "Praise" section. This lends unfair weight to the POV that the report is praiseworthy and not anti-Semitic. I suggest either removing the "Reaction to the reception" section from the article (while keeping "Mearsheimer and Walt's response" within the "Reception" heading) or adding a section stating the specific refutations of the claims within the article by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and others who criticize the report. --GHcool 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

11 days later and no response? OK. I'm going for it. --GHcool 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all noteworthy, I believe. One could put it all under "Praise", but there's no reason to remove it altogether. —Ashley Y 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also sorry for not responding before you went for it... —Ashley Y 10:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I removed it to get somebody's attention. Although I would be in favor of the section's complete removal, I didn't realistically believe I could do that without compromising. So let's talk about how we can reformat the section so that it doesn't give unfair weight to the POV that the report is praise-worthy. As I suggested above, we can state the specific refutations of the claims within the report. This would make the Wikipedia article longer, but more balanced. --GHcool 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong approach. Any source that is notable and comments on the paper should be included, and I believe that's what we have now. The headings are just there to organise it all. If the aggregation of sources suggest that the report is praise-worthy (and it's not clear that it does, given the length of the criticism section), then that's fair weight, not unfair weight. —Ashley Y 19:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I accept your arguments. I hope you don't mind then that I include specific refutations of the specific claims. I imagine a point/counterpoint type of dialogue such as the following:

Point: "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during (list of wars from 1948-1967) - all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing."

Counterpoint: Israel had 3 tanks, 35 aircrafts, 5 artilary units, and 28,000 troops while the Arabs had 270 tanks, 300 aircrafts, 150 artilary units, and 35,000 troops.[2]

This could potentially be very messy, but I think this information (provided that they are from reliable sources) is as necessary to the article as more praise for the article (provided that they too are from reliable sources). Also, I don't think "Point" and "Counterpoint" are the right words to use because they are too connotation is too devicive (it was the only two words that came to mind). Do you, Ashley, or anyone else have any suggestions as to how we can do something like this, while still keeping the article pleasing to the eye? --GHcool 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the subject of the article is this one academic paper. So we report on what various people say about the paper, rather than taking any given commentary as a credible source to judge assertions made in the paper. Otherwise the counterpoints would give rise to their own counter-counter-points (for instance, that the CAMERA figures are only for the beginning of the war, and that Zionist forces reached 100,000 by December 1948), and the article ends up off-topic. —Ashley Y 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll just add the CAMERA link at the bottom of the "External links" then. --GHcool 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already there as footnote 31. —Ashley Y 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)