Talk:Jewish lobby

NPOV concerns and suggestion

The term "Jewish lobby" is used by some without prejudice to refer to the Israel lobby in the United States, although it seems clear that it is not a precise term. It would be good to note this in the introductory sentence or alternatively (and I prefer this solution) we could put "For X, see Y" notes on the top of both this page and the Israel lobby in the United States in order to handle the confusion between these two terms in the standard Wikipedia way. --Deodar 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Without prejudice"? According to whom? BTW, it's also used to refer to all sorts of other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Time historical magazine coverage of a battle between what they term the "Arab lobby" and the "Jewish lobby" -- its one of the sources I'm going to incorporate into the arab lobby article in the near future:

"Operating with growing confidence, the President and his top aides turned in their most skillful selling job on the Senate so far. The emerging Arab lobby displayed surprising sophistication and shrewdness. The Jewish lobby responded massively, but was undercut by confused signals from Jerusalem, as well as by some indecision in its own ranks, and it suffered a rare loss in Congress." [1]

Another quote, this time from Ha'artz:

"The establishment of the institute raises another, intra-Jewish problem. After all, this is the home arena of European Judaism. People like Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, believe that a Jewish lobby in Brussels should be run by European Jews, and not by American Jews." [2]

The term "Jewish lobby" is also used in this recent NYT headline [3].

Here is a quote from a BBC article:

"The Jewish lobby has long been perceived as a powerful influence on US foreign policy but, as BBC Washington correspondent Stephen Sackur reveals, Israel has found new support from American Christians." [4]

I could go on... Anyhow, I am not claiming that it is not used with racist intent, it is a favorite term of racists, but that to say that it is only used by those with racist intent is just wrong. --Deodar 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that Israel is a Jewish state, the Jewish Lobby is clearly the Israel Lobby. Perhaps the page could have some clarification language ("For X, see Y" as suggested at top). The US domestic concers of people of Jewish faith exist, also, a Pro-Zionism lobby exists. These are statements of fact, not racism.

Your first statement employs a logical fallacy. Consider "Being that poodles are dogs, the dog fancier association is clearly the poodle fancier association." -- 71.102.136.107 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is included in the Antisemitism collection is laughable, its purpose is to suggest that criticism of Zionism is the same antisemitism, which to any serious discourse is wholly different.

70.178.56.254 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a quite different subject. -- 71.102.136.107 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Problematic criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt

I just moved this from the article to here:

"The Washington Times qualifies John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's usage of the term as the "recycling of old canards", inviting "authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows," whereas"

The problem is that Mearsheimer and Walt do not use the term "Jewish lobby" in their paper, the author of the Washington Times article paraphrases their use of "Israel Lobby" as "Jewish lobby" and then attacks it -- it appears to be a use of the "straw man" rhetorical technique. Read the WT article and you'll see what I mean. Because of this, it isn't accurate to criticize Mearsheimer and Walt in this article for "using" the term "Jewish lobby", they didn't. --Deodar 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Various

The footnotes have doubled themselves at the end and I can't see why they're doing it.

Bhouston, when you write refs, could you please start with the name of the author, if there is one? The usual practise is surname first, but it's name first in any event. Also, be sure to put quotation marks around the title of the paper/article. e.g.

Aaronovitch, David. "Message to the left: there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby", The Guardian, May 27, 2003.

Also, please don't put quotations in italics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems you are complaining about were not my edits -- you should be more careful when singling people out for criticism. But anyhow, your attention is always appreciated! --Deodar 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a major issue remaining -- there is significant usages of the term "Jewish lobby" that are not racist nor are they trying to exaggerate influence. Thus in the current formulation there is a lack of nuance. For example I quoted these above to Jayjg:

Time historical magazine coverage of a battle between what they term the "Arab lobby" and the "Jewish lobby" -- its one of the sources I'm going to incorporate into the arab lobby article in the near future:

"Operating with growing confidence, the President and his top aides turned in their most skillful selling job on the Senate so far. The emerging Arab lobby displayed surprising sophistication and shrewdness. The Jewish lobby responded massively, but was undercut by confused signals from Jerusalem, as well as by some indecision in its own ranks, and it suffered a rare loss in Congress." [5]

Another quote, this time from Ha'artz:

"The establishment of the institute raises another, intra-Jewish problem. After all, this is the home arena of European Judaism. People like Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, believe that a Jewish lobby in Brussels should be run by European Jews, and not by American Jews." [6]

The term "Jewish lobby" is also used in this recent NYT headline [7].

Here is a quote from a BBC article:

"The Jewish lobby has long been perceived as a powerful influence on US foreign policy but, as BBC Washington correspondent Stephen Sackur reveals, Israel has found new support from American Christians." [8]

--Deodar 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why no answer on Talk:Jewish lobby query?

(moved from SV talk page) It would be cool to answer my response on the talk page. Both you and Jayjg seem to be avoiding answering it. The term "Jewish lobby" is used by the BBC, Ha'aretz, Time Magazine (historically), and the New York Times in non prejudical fashions. I can find lots more references. I will continue to pursue this and outside commentators will see that your extreme position, i.e. that the term is never used by non racists or people pushing distortions, is non-nonsensical -- you are painting with too broad a brush. I know how you feel but you are not taking a position on this article that reflects all of reality, just a single aspect of it. --Deodar 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted with a little humor, that this page currently has an example by Madeline Albreit, which I added, using the term "Jewish lobby" in a non-prejudical way. Also the quote from David Aaronovitch is not saying there is no "Jewish lobby" he is instead saying that "there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby" (emphasis added) -- thus he talking about distortions that exaggerate influence in order to scapegoat a minority. This topic is emotional but that doesn't mean one has to stop being precise about things. --Deodar 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the second time you've referred to emotions. In what way is it emotional; and when you wrote that you know how I "feel," what feelings do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be acting strange here -- your usual balance and NPOV concerns are going out the window and you are painting with a broad brush. This type of behavior indicates that your normal logic is being overriden for some reason and thus I suspect that it is by your emotions. If there is another reason that explains this please share? I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt. --Deodar 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But what emotions? My feelings about what? Please answer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussions, like email, are methods of communication in which one can not use the normal body language and voice tone cues for understanding the emotional states of others -- I am sure you are familiar that in everyday life, that non-verbal channels are very important for effective inter-personal communication. Without these non-verbal channels, people are prone to misunderstanding -- it is an established fact for email communications. I can not deduce why you are excluding this viewpoint -- I am close to 3RR now for trying to keep it in -- thus I am left speculate, its better than any alternative I've thought of so far.

Personally, I once attended a movie presentation put on by Jews for Just Peace at a local Jewish community center which deteriorated, for at least one participant, into very angry and flustered accusations anti-Semitism towards another participant who expressed support for a New York Review of Book article of Tony Judt's that advocated a single bi-national state. Emotions in this general area can run high, and emotional people don't tend to exhibit a lot of concern for nuance or an ability to see the point of view of others. (Its actually an established fact that once the fight-or-flight response is triggered there is an increased tendency towards "spontaneous or intuitive behaviors" rather than seeing and dealing with the world with their usual full cognitive potential.) --Deodar 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Americocentrism

Bhouston, regardless of any other consideration, please don't keep trying to switch the focus to only one country and one issue. The term is used by many groups all over the world to refer to many things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with you that my concern is only one aspect of the word's usage, I never claimed otherwise -- but that does not in anyway mean that coverage of this usage must not be even mentioned in this article. If nothing else, there should be a dab header. --Deodar 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You yourself told me the other day that you are intimately familiar with NPOV guidlines going so far as to have made significant contributions to that core Wikipedia principal yourself. --Deodar 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes to the first; no to the latter, and it's a question of accuracy. You're determined to single out one use because of your politics. Mention it, yes, but don't single it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive

SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus sapiens have been removing references that the term "Jewish lobby" may be made in reference to the Israel lobby in the United States. It is true that the term is a favorite of racists as the current state of the article reflects but this is not its only usage as my previous comments on this page clearly show. The term is used by mainstream American, British and Israeli publications in non-prejudical fashion to reference the Israel lobby in the United States. That said, there is a deeper reason why the removal of this viewpoint by SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus sapiens is a bad idea. People that hear in vague references about a supposed "Jewish lobby" from whatever sources informal or not may end up here. They may also hear that talking about the Jewish lobby is taboo even though it exists. This page, if it only condemns any mention of it as anti-Semitism but there is some hints in the way it is condemned to suggest there is more too it, it reduces the effectiveness of condemning things as anti-Semitic. Refusing to deal with the topic here, i.e. not satisfying people's curiosity, may cause people to seek information elsewhere, information which may not, especially if it is on racists sites, present a honest picture. It is much better to satisfy people's curiosity with the truth, aim to correct people that get distorted understandings of the "Jewish lobby" in addition to pointing out what are distortions and why some groups promote them. The truth it is a lot more boring and a lot more grounding than fantasies they can find elsewhere. Honestly, leaving curiosity unsatisfied (especially when done as clumsily as the article currently does) is more dangerous than giving them the boring truth. --Deodar 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says "used predominantly by the far right, [4] Islamists, [4] and some elements on the left. [2]". I am not a native speaker but I understand that "predominantly" is not the same as "exclusively". Is it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response -- I appreciated it. The article's lead sentence is "Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, and international finance." The third sentence says "The expression is regarded as an anti-Semitic slur." The second sentence from my reading just specifies where this expression is used, the qualifier "predominantly" is not in reference to how it is used. --Deodar 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is rather straightforward. "predominantly" say who it's used by; it say nothing about what it means. Humus sapiens seems to be confirming that the term is not used exclusively in prejudicial fashion, but Dasondas says below that it is a slur regardless of intent. I can see those as consistent, but if true, shouldn't the article indicate that somewhere -- that the term is sometimes used by non-anti-semites who fail to realize its anti-semitic semantics? However, I think Deodar's citations indicate that it isn't quite true -- sometimes Jewish organizations use it in a non-anti-semitic way. But -- when they do so, they are referring to Jewish interests, not Israeli interests, as when they speak of a "Jewish lobby in Brussels", which has nothing to do with Israel or the U.S. pro-Israel lobby. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See: Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive. Feel free to remove this comment, its just a notice. --Deodar 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben, please don't leave messages about specific articles on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How's this: "The term Dirty Jew is used predominantly by antisemites, unless the Jew in question is indeed dirty." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad start, HS. But I'd tweak it a bit and add "or said Jew is responsible for starting all wars". IronDuke 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term Dirty Jewish Person is more appropriate, but I'll defer to the consensus.Dasondas 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

These comments seem to reflect a circular argument. The issue is whether there are any non-anti-semitic uses of "Jewish lobby", so any explicitly anti-semitic term isn't analogous. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fwiw, IMO "Jewish Lobby" is a slur no matter the intention of the user. Those who use the term in ignorance or otherwise without bad intent should nevertheless be informed that the term itself is derogatory, and they should be encouraged to adopt alternative phraseology.Dasondas 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, when reporting on the fact that the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations thinks that a Jewish lobby in Brussels should be run by European Jews, not American Jews, that is a derogatory usage? What alternative phraseology would you suggest? Or, perhaps your opinion is just that, and isn't encyclopedic. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here off of the Pharyngula atheist/biology blog. We're having an argument about whether Dawkins' mention of the Jewish lobby is antisemitic. Other guy cited the main article, I've cited this talk.

Let me reiterate what I said there: a number of the organizations compromising the informal Jewish lobby have Jewish right in their name, Israel is an avowedly Jewish state, and the people it advocates on behalf of are generally Jewish. It's Orwellian, strange and clumsy to say that the term "Jewish" alone, just because it's next to "lobby", has become a slur, even though most of the group's component parts wear the label proudly. You really should consider that, although it might be a favorite of antisemites, it's still not a slur in and of itself any more than "Jewish" is in and of itself.

That way, in the future, when people want to argue about the meaning of what biologists have said about the internal politics of foreign countries' lobbies, the immediate Wikipedia citation can at least reflect that there's at least serious dispute about whether the term is a slur in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.37.227 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stab at decent resolution? Dab page

I created a dab page and listed two meanings so far. I have removed non-conspiratorial relevant links from this page since it is now clearly focused on one specific usage. I have also added to the article Israel lobby in the United States a "for X, see Y" template to this page. Jayjg said there are other meanings that the dab page is probably the easiest way to go. What do you think? --Deodar 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also rewritten the lead of the Israel lobby in the United States to better cover why the term "Jewish lobby" is not preferred. I have added explicitly, by copying from this article, that it is an anti-Semitic slur and what it is used to allege. This seems like a good resolution. --Deodar 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also created an Israel lobby (disambiguation) page that is tied to the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page. While it may seem complex, I think this is an amazing solution that now also deals with Jayjg's earlier expressed concerns about the ambiguity of the term "Israel lobby" itself. --Deodar 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removing blue links and reliable sources

Why must he continue to do such things?Kiyosaki 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you come up with anything better? What kind of argument is "blue link"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

history

Someone who knows more about this topic should expand the history section. I’ve been trying to find the origin of the conspiracy theory without much luck. Racist people don’t seem to make this allegation against any other group, so I was wondering if the conspiracy theory is based on some point in history where Jewish people did control a disproportional high number of banks or media providers. Thanks, --Arctic Gnome 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care, but "some point in history"? jews make up 1% of the US pop and control 85% of the fim studios, I wonder what absolute domination of the mass media could be used for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.230.213 (talk • contribs)

Obviusly you do "particularly care" enough to post here. Is there a problem when talented, creative and enterprising people (many of whom happened to be Jews) create a new industry and market? It seems that some non-talented, non-creative and non-enterprising people cannot see anything but Jewish plots. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a Jewish conspiracy is silly, but whenever one minority group is largely overrepresented in something, it is of encyclopaedic value to find out why. It’s just like the question of why men are disproportionably overrepresented in government; no one thinks that there is an organized male conspiracy, but it’s still something that’s worth studying academically. If Jewish people do own a lot of the banking and film industries relative to their population, the article should say why. For example, are there just a couple of extremely wealthy Jews pulling up the average? Does the ownership date back many generations to a time when ownership laws were beneficial to the Jewish community? There surely must be some explanation. --Arctic Gnome 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New Article Proposal -- Anti-capitalism and antisemitism

It seems that, much like anti-globalization and antisemitism, a great deal of anti-Semitic feelings are related to anti-capitalism. Many of the people that have these beliefs are obviously socialistic and/or left-leaning in political orientation (which includes many Jews, by the way), asserting that some Jews use their "traditional business acumen" and "shrewdness" to "dominate" and/or "control" key industries, in the meanwhile eliminating all competitors; this is often in contrast to those on The Right that have anti-Semitic beliefs that are racial (Racial antisemitism) and/or religious (Anti-Judaism) in orientation. However, even Nazism (often associated with the Far Right) was technically called the 'National Socialist German Workers Party,' (the key words there being 'Socialist' and 'Workers,' both associated with anti-capitalism), and if you read around you'll find that many of the Nazi leaders expressed quite a bit of anti-capitalist sentiment in relation to Jews, especially in their more personal writings. Indeed, one of the first thing that the Nazis did when they came to power was to organize mass-boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses (especially dept. stores, newspapers, and various banks), which eventually decimated the German-Jewish community economically and caused many of them to emigrate within a few months or years.

This is not only the case in modern times with the so-called "New antisemitism" (which is strongly associated with the more socialistic Left), but was also found in the past where many prominent Communists/socialists were anti-capitalist AND anti-Semitic at the same time. Stalin cracked down on Jews in the USSR post-WWII, citing that they [paraphrasing] "still have too much control in business and government." This also includes many lower-tier Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc, along with Karl Marx in his essay On the Jewish Question. Many of these Communist/socialist Jews went so far as to entirely renounce Judaism (and all religion), and became radical anti-Semites (or Self-hating Jews, take your pick) in their own right -- for example, Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő of Hungary were both ethnic Jews and were anti-Semitic, along with many other Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc.

Also, amongst non-Jews these days, it is commonly said that "the Jews own/run/control everything" (anti-capitalist & anti-Semitic) or that "Jews control the media" (the media is also a business, at base -- especially Hollywood), or that in certain industries non-Jews are no longer able to compete anymore because "Jews already own everything" or that "the Jews have entirely cornered certain markets" (competition is an important element in free-market capitalism; in fact, it is key to the whole system). The increasing numbers of mergers and acquisitions in recent times (as the world has become more globalized), especially when it comes to media companies, seems to back-up a few of these theories (see the Viacom table I've added below as only one example of how "mergers and acquisitions" have affected the marketplace; and remember this is only a single example). It is also well known that Jews have been highly successful in the banking/financial sectors and are VERY overrepresented in these fields (the "Shylock stereotype"), epitomized most by Wall Street (based in New York City), along with all of the banks that are headquartered there: it is well known that many of the top directors, boards, and CEOs of these banks and other major financial companies/corporations are of Jewish ethnic origin (see List of Jewish American businesspeople, though this is only a fraction), even if they no longer practice Judaism and despite the fact that they are only approx. 2.5% of the U.S. population. Thus, I think that Anti-capitalism and antisemitism would make a good article, as more than a few anti-capitalists often harbor anti-Semitic beliefs as well (both in the past and the present). Anyone have more ideas, opinions, or thoughts on this subject? Would anyone like to start an article on this topic? --172.128.120.24 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any logical connection between the two concepts? The existence of people who happen to believe both X and Y is not sufficient grounds for the creation of an article on that subject. Anti-capitalists are a very broad group of people, and no doubt include many anti-Semites as well as many Jews (Labor Zionism, the main political movement that led to the creation of the State of Israel, is anti-capitalist in nature). Of course there have been allegations of Jews "controlling" "international capitalism", but there have been just as many (if not more) claims of a "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy, or supposed Jewish control of "international communism". Jews may be overrepresented among bankers, but they are also overrepresented among communist thinkers and political leaders. Indeed, one key element of Nazi propaganda was the claim that communism is a Jewish conspiracy. Most of the anti-communist far right is antisemitic. Should we therefore have an article entitled Anti-communism and antisemitism? -- Nikodemos 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lobby/Israel lobby back and forth

This statement or versions of it have been added and remove from the article for a while:

The term "Jewish lobby" is also used without prejudice to refer to an Israel lobby in mainstream newspapers in America, Israel and Britain.

Is there a way to handle this so that a stable solution can be found that everyone agrees with? Maybe the disambiguation line at the top of the article could be modified to suggest that the user may be looking for the "Israel lobby" entry directly -- the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) article is mostly a duplicate of the Israel lobby page anyhow. What do ya'll think? --64.230.127.30 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

putting the article under the heading anti semitism is NPOV and clearly aimed at predjudicing its future direction

Tags

I've put in the too few viewpoints tags. Further up the talk page is it asserted that "The term is used by many groups all over the world to refer to many things". So let's have them in the article. Catchpole 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"However" section moved to talk

I've moved the following sentence to Talk:

However, the term "Jewish lobby" is also used to refer to an Israel lobby in mainstream newspapers in America, Israel and Britain.

The item violates a number of fundamental policies and guidelines. To begin with, it's original research; that is,

It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position.

The statement has clearly been put there to counter the sourced claim that the term's use is antisemitic, yet this counter-argument is sourced to no-one.

Next, it also violates WP:NEO:

To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term... 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).

The sources used in this article must discuss the term "Jewish lobby", not merely use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole, rather than continuing to violate policy, please respond here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what you revert. The Haaretz article about the Jewish lobby is already linked to from this article. Catchpole 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. The issue you mention has been fixed. Please respond to the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is the material you removed was not original research, and by removing it the article is even further away from meeting NPOV than it is at the moment. Catchpole 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was OR. You introduced it to counter the argument that use of the term "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic. You made that extremely clear; you were even nice enough to use the word "However", to make your intent indisputable. None of the sources you brought actually discussed the term itself; you merely brought a bunch of sources which used the term, and in so doing attempted to prove that it could be used in an non antisemitic way. If you think the article is POV, you need to find sources which discuss the term. But I don't have to tell you this; you've made the exact same argument yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What tosh. The lobby is discussed by Rosner here [9]. Catchpole 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What tosh. Rosner, writing on his blog, uses the term "Jewish lobby" in inverted commas, and he doesn't actually discuss the term itself. This is an article about the term. Please re-read WP:NEO, you seem to have forgotten what you quoted from it less than a week ago. Also, please respond to the point that you were making up an argument to counter an argument about the term being antisemitic. Are you going to now claim that unless you can make up your own argument that the term is not antisemitic, that the article is therefore POV? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NEO says avoid neologisms. Jewish lobby is not a neologism so I don't know why you are referring to this guideline. Rosner's article is about attacks on the Jewish lobby so I don't know why you are insisting on keeping any views that don't coincide with the AIPAC worldview out of the article. Catchpole 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neologism? I can't find it in any standard dictionaries. When was it first used? As for the rest, please explain why you insist on using original research arguments to counter views that disagree with your own. By the way, Political Research Associates is quite different than AIPAC. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

How can the sentence "The expression is regarded as anti-semitic slur." be attributed to Tariq Ramadans article? Seems like stretching the sources here. In the referenced article he mentiones the expression once and though he is critical of the conspiracy theories about the powerful jews, I can not really find any evidence that he regards the expression (per se) as slur. I´ve just browsed it and am not a native english speaker, but please help me understand... Maybe sources from both "sides" should be placed under the same scrutiny? pertn 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the cite? Ramadan states:

Malicious words, cries of “down with the Jews” shouted during protest demonstrations and, in a few cities in France, reports of synagogues being vandalized. One also hears ambiguous statements about Jews, their “occult-like” power, their “insidious” role within the media and their “nefarious” plans. After September 11th, the false rumour that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work the morning of the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center was relayed throughout predominantly Muslim areas.

It is very rare to hear Muslim voices that set themselves apart from this kind of discourse and attitude. Often, one will try to explain away these phenomena as being a result of extreme frustration and humiliation. That may be true, but one must be honest and analyze the situation deeply. This is the real meaning of self-criticism. Much like the situation across the Muslim world, there exists in the West today a discourse which is anti-Semitic, seeking legitimacy in certain Islamic texts and support in the present situation in Palestine. This is the attitude of not only the marginalized youth but also of intellectuals and Imams, who see the manipulative hand of the “Jewish lobby” at each turn or every political setback.[10]

I don't think it's a stretch at all. <<-armon->> 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I browsed it. The sentence in WP implies that the expression "Jewish lobby" itself is slur. The article mentions the "manipulative hand of the 'jewish lobby'" but that does not neccesary imply that to talk about the lobby, manipulative or not, IS slur. Also, should TR mean that the expression is racial slur, that does not mean that it provides attribution for the statement that it is (implicitly: generally) "regarded as racial slur". If you want to write that, you will have to source some authority on the subject stating excactly that. For now, you hardly have attribution for saying that it is regarded as racial slur "by some". (because I am not actually sure if mr ramadan would agree that the phrase in itself neccecarily is racial slur, though it is often used in that context). pertn 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering at its worst. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First: I feel maybe Jayjg's latest edits here are closer to wikilawyering, aren't they? Second: Isn't it reasonable to expect that the sources say what they are given as reference to? Clearly, the source given does not justify the given sentence. actually, I would find it quite possible that Tariq Ramadan himself would not agree completely to the mentioned sentence. Thirdly: If you have arguments, you are welcome to present them. pertn 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing material that violates WP:NOR and WP:NEO cannot possibly be "wikilawyering". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK well I've changed the sentence to: "The expression is regarded as casting antisemitic aspersions." I think the word "slur" was causing the confusion that "Jewish Lobby" was a racial slur equivalent to nigger or kike. How's that? <<-armon->> 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's better, though I am still not sure whether it is completely attributable to Ramadan. However, I suppose there are quite a few sources that will say this. An even more precise (?) proposition could be something like: "The expression is commonly asscosiated with antisemitic aspersions." Thus underscoring the fact (what TR also states) that the expression is often used in connection with conspiracy theories and so on. But not claiming that the expression itself IS the slur. (My main beef with the whole article is that it underestimates the fact that the expression is often used referring to the Israel-lobby, to a specific political phenomenom which one in the name of free speech must be allowed to discuss, without any antisemitic undertext at all.) pertn 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then find an RS cite which states that "Jewish Lobby" is used in a non-antisemitic sense like "Israel lobby". I'm dubious that it IS in fact used that way, so I'm going to restore "The expression is regarded as casting antisemitic aspersions." <<-armon->> 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the burdon of proof is on you my friend. The sentence I propose is wider still more precisely connected to the attribution we have. I cannot really see why you want to change it. So I'm reverting. pertn 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I see now that your comment is coined at my main beef with the article, mentioned in bracets in my earlier entry. This is not the motivation for the changed sentence in the lead. That change is about fitting the WP entry to what the sources say. Because of the OR policy, it is hard to document that the expression is used in a non-antisemitic way. (So I am not writing it either) I can find examples on use (I think someone have already tried to include such examples), but I guess it is harder to find some notable commentator that bothers to comment such use. Hence the OR problem, it doesn't help if I see UFOs landing on my lawn, I have to find some notable nerd to cite to put it in WP. Basically the "discussion" about whether the expression itself is automatically antisemitic seems dominated by those who would really like to put a lable of antisemitism on every word that can be critical of Israel. Their view is easier to attribute, since they have an explicit discussion about it. Well, as all of this is OR, I have no intention on writing it in the article. My entry is unrealated to this, and is only a more precise reference to T. Ramadan's quite sensible article. pertn 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist

Catchpole has again inserted the following sentence:

The Economist has used the term American-Jewish lobby to refer to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The article in question uses the term "American-Jewish lobby" in a headline, and then describes AIPAC as "the lobby" in the article. Exactly what it the point being made here? How is this relevant to this article? I must remind Catchpole that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the point is supposed to be, the Economist article about AIPAC and not about the term "Jewish Lobby". <<-armon->> 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Example that the expression can be used in a non-antisemitic way. See my edit above. I agree it is Catchpole's edit may be OR, but I also belive that examples like these should tell other editors that we should try to write the article in a way that covers this aspect of reality: That there are examples of neutral use of the concept. I think it should be a matter of honor to try to be as truthful as possible, and even though the OR-policy may inhibit presentation of the fact that Catchpole proposes, I think the article should not exclude the possibility. pertn 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The OR policy was not designed to be a tool to prevent POV articles being improved. Catchpole 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you found a reliable source that make the argument that you are trying to make, in accord with the original research policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than the Economist or the Haaretz? I haven't got time to play your games at the moment. Catchpole 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't the cites -or the time, please don't deface the article with the tags. <<-armon->> 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, per WP:NOR, you must find a source which makes your argument. You can't build one based on original research. Tags aren't forever, and per WP:NPOV dispute "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." As Armon says, if you don't have the time to find sources for the argument, or none exist, you can't keep defacing the article with these tags. We've been very, very patient. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed tags (again)

Pertn restored the tags stating: "Seriously Jayjg, even you don't think this article covers all relevant views and is NPOV". Both he and I have asked for cites stating that the term is used in a non-antisemitic way (or whatever way you guys are arguing that it's used). None have been forthcoming and the supposed examples that were given were, a) OR and b) dubious because it was a different phrase which referred to a Jewish lobby group, not the Jewish lobby. There is no legitimate reason to keep the tags. If proper cites are produced, we still don't need them, because then we'll just incorporate them. <<-armon->> 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another rv: Pertn, please list what you think the outstanding issues are. <<-armon->> 09:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "supporter" of conspiration theories about jewish influence and what have you, so I do not really care about being the devils advocate here, but I must say that if you and Jayjg sincerely believe that this article is a NPOV presentation of the term/concept "Jewish Lobby", I think your calling in the world should be something else than to be trying to compile an encyclopedia. So first of all: I am appealing to your common sense or sense of pride (with regards to presenting the reader with a neutral article), cause I do not really have the energy to go into an edit war about this worthless article.

Secondly: Catchpole and Deodar have presented instances of "neutral" references to JL, though they may not have presented any attributable source saying that JL is often used in such a manner. (such usage is also quite common in my native country, basically referring to jewish pro-israel groups, without any antisemitic undertext). I have no sources to say that the word "apple" is sometimes used in a non-antisemitic manner either. This is a flaw of the OR policy, and if I'd cared about this article I'd might do the dirtywork of changing this article by arguing this case.

Thirdly: The structure and content of the article is exlusively from an "anti-anti-JL" angle. So much so that I believe that most readers will look through it instantly. For example, the clumsyness of the first sentence, "Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. ", will make the article seem little credible to people that understand the word "Lobby". But, what the heck, you may be able to convince some kids or something. For me, it is hard to respect WP:AGF here.

To conclude. Just remove the tags if you really want to. It will stand in your name, armon. pertn 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The original research policy is not flawed; it protects Wikipedia from editors making up their own arguments, as in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I "making up my own arguments", here? Please explain, my friend. pertn 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Asserting that "Jewish Lobby" is used without any antisemitic undertext. You've conceded that drawing conclusions from the (dubious) examples which were given is OR and that there are no reliable sources which make this point for you. Calling WP:OR "broken" is ridiculous -encyclopedias are not the places for original research, and suggesting that I'm intellectually dishonest because I won't accept yours, isn't appreciated. Let's just drop it. <<-armon->> 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am asserting that the phrase may (!) sometimes (!) be used without any AS undertext. (For example [11] here it is used by N. Finkelstein. Hardly an anti-semite?) From the (avoidance of) discussion above here I suppose that you too agree that that may be the case. Also: The term's etymological meaning is a mere reference to lobby groups that are jewish. Is it the role of an encyclopedia to label this commonsensical use of the term antisemitic, whereas claiming that the term is referring to all kinds of allegations about influence in media and what have you not, is? I am not, and here I am replying to Jayjg too, claiming that there is something wrong with the OR policy per se, but I am just claiming that it may be used in cases like this as a fig leaf for editors that want to promote a specific point of view within marginal topics. To conclude: I am not at all proposing that the AS use of the term should be underestimated or hidden. Clearly it is often used by conspiracy-theorist, nazis etc, but this encyclopedia-article should not try to promote the equation "The ones who use the term JL=antisemites". That, you can do elsewherepertn 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pertn: by your logic, "dirty Jew" is also not necessarily an antisemitic expression.

"N. Finkelstein. Hardly an anti-semite" - bad example: actually, NF is often accused of being one, and is often quoted by certified antisemites. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pertn, it's interesting to see you say "Just remove the tags if you really want to" above, yet revert me as soon as I do remove them. The term "Jewish lobby'" is part of the discourse of antisemitism, and it's pure wikilawyering to say that the "etymological" meaning is "a mere reference to lobby groups that are jewish". As Humus Sapiens points out, you might by the same logic claim that "dirty Jew" is also not necessarily an antisemitic expression. The etymological meaning of that is just a jewish person who hasn't showered today, isn't it? If you think, with Wasserman, that the article will wear those tags until it's infiltrated by the very antisemitic discourse it should properly analyze, think again. And please don't edit war. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Kind of funny, aint it? I wont bother to reiterate my own arguments about OR here, since you are clearly already in the trenches, wearing a tin hat and borrowing Humus sapiens' very clever argument about a dirty jew. (hey, why didn't he answer my super cool apple-argument.) You are just ridiculous if you believe that I and Wasserman want to "infiltrate an antisemitic discourse" into the article. In fact I regard it a personal attack, but I will assume that you just do not understand his an my arguments properly. (condescending? me?) The reason why I reverted your dismissal of wasserman's tags is that your accompanying comment is based on a simple polarizing logic that does not fit with my understanding of wikipedia. To want a balanced and fair article about this concept is a possible position, and if you believe that I (and I suppose Wasserman) mean by this to introduce some kind of antisemitic rethorics or something, it is your problem. Therefore, I "defended" these tags from what I believe was a hasty and misunderstood revert from you. And wikilaywering: my arguments about the OR policy is really against what I percieve as WL instead of trying to seek a NPOV version. And what you call WL by me is a part of my explanation, not my main argument (which you of course is welcome to comment). The clue is: You, Humus Sapiens, Wasserman, Armon and I all know that to describe the phrase/concept JL solely from the position that it is something uttered by antisemites or in antisemitic contexts etc, is not entirely true. pertn 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

not antisemetic

This article should not go under the heading 'antisemitism.' The allegation of an inordinately influential pro Israel lobby is not antisemitic. 71.179.117.2 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Scifiintel 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

relevant article by Noam Chomsky

please consider adding this link to references:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=9999 it is a N. Chomsky article about the "Israel lobby", a somewhat different concept from Jewish lobby

(i am new to editing and don't want to do it myself)

Reference hyperlink

Bartletts article (quite good actually) is available online here: http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/ I am not sure how to add it.pertn 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Message to Jpgordon

I recently wrote this message to Jpgordon after he reverted my edit which talked about a Jewish Lobby exerting too much influence in the U.S. (I referenced it with an IHR website), he told me to write it on the talk, so here it is: Hi, you say we don't site "Holocaust denial websites", but IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust. IHR says that any serious scholar wouldn't deny the Holocaust, but that they do try to historically review our standard view of the holocaust and present possible exaggerations of it. Anyone who says the Holocaust couldn't be exaggerated at least somewhat in our modern view of history isn't being NPOV because there are two sides to every story. In this case the sides are that the atrocities of the Holocaust are played down and were actually far worse, or the atrocities of the Holocaust have been exaggerated and were actually not as bad. To not include either of these sides is to not be NPOV, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV, so I would ask that you consider reverting your edits on the Jewish lobby article. There are two sides to that article, and what I have added helps to present both sides. Thank you, Scifiintel 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) What do you people think, should we add stuff which I believe presents the other side of this article? Thanks, Scifiintel 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust. Yes, they do. See Institute for Historical Review and its talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow! Whoever added that amazing footnote regarding IHR's Holocaust denial is one amazing editor! ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Careful; you'll strain your arm with a backpat like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Major POV push today.

Big edit push today to characterize talking about a "Jewish lobby" as antisemitism. Rolled back a few edits. If that argument is going to go anywhere, it needs more supporting citations from reliable sources. --John Nagle 06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some country-by-country analysis is in order. The US certainly has a Jewish lobby; there's a minor one in the UK (see BICOM), but outside that, is there much activity? --John Nagle 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back a major push to whitewash antisemitism. Pro-Israel does not necessarily means Jewish. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has two cites from Jewish sources talking about a Jewish lobby as a good thing, both from prominent Israeli newspapers. So it can't be that pejorative. --John Nagle 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a place for OR. Ironically, elsewhere some editors insist that many Jews do not support Zionism and Israel. You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Country sections

We had a quote farm of somewhat disorganized quotes, and I've put them under country sections. We have US and UK sections now. There are indications in [12] that a USSR section might be useful, but I'm not sure how to write that. --John Nagle 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Jayjg (talk · contribs) has a problem with this. But so far there's been nothing from him on the talk page about it. --John Nagle 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are the usual suspects upset about organizing the quote farm by country? That ought not to be much of an issue. This is starting to look like a WP:OWN problem. --John Nagle 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "usual suspects" means, but count me in. This "organization" seems completely artificial. Why separate them by country of the source and not by gender? By your logic, Vijay Prasad belongs to India subsection. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the quotes refer to statements made about events in specific countries. The Guardian quote is from an article about a minor scandal involving a British member of the European parliament. The US quotes refer to statements specific to the United States. Please don't revert blindly; try to improve the article. --John Nagle 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "statements made about events in specific countries", just the opposite. E.g. Aaronovich mentions internet stories with headlines such as, "What were 120 Israeli spies doing in America a few months before the 9/11 attacks?", etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RS

I suggest we remove op-eds as not reliable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting edits of other people who just wish to present the whole story, in its complexity. If no consensus can be reached on specific subjects, it is a must to present all opinions in a balanced manner.--Mazarin07 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism and other POV edits

Numerous cited scholars and researchers have documented that "Jewish lobby" is a term used to promote or reinforce antisemitic stereotypes. Whether or not you believe that the term is always used this way, there can be no question it often, or at least sometimes, is. So the template needs to be there.

Nobody disputes that there are Jewish (as well as Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) advocacy groups that seek to influence policy through "lobbying." This is a perfectly legitimate political activity, regulated by a number of laws and rules. But the term "Jewish lobby" is - as has been documented - used to imply that Jewish organizations exercise an inordinate, inappropriate, and clandestine influence on US policy, even to the detriment of American interests. It is hard to find examples of the term being used in any other way in any of the literature. To illustrate: you'd be hard pressed to find the many Jewish philanthropic organizations listed as part of the "Jewish lobby," and whenever you find the term "lobby" used for other groups, (e.g., "Big Tobacco Lobby") it has a similar negative connotation.

So while one should acknowledge the existence of Jewish advocacy organizations, which the article does, it would be misleading to represent the notion that the term "Jewish lobby" is used as a neutral synonym for "Jewish advocacy organizations." It is of course a legitimate question how much influence Jewish organizations have, but that is covered in the article. In other words, this article - based on its title - is about that question: who raises it, why, what effect does it have, what are the various answers. --Leifern 11:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this many times before; people need to find sources discussing the term "Jewish lobby", not just using the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected from editing

I think that labelling the Jewish lobby as a mere conspiracy theory cannot be justified. Of course, there is also this aspect related to the subject, but the Wikipedia article shall present all facets of the issue. The presence of Antisemitism template is an expression of recognizing the overwhelming importance of the conspiracy theory, so it must be removed. IMHO the inclusion into the Category:Antisemitism can remain in place.--Mazarin07 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Though, it is very interesting that Mr. JoshuaZ (sic!) protected in the first place the pro-conspiracy theory version...--Mazarin07 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:V and WP:NOR? Do you have any sources for any of your claims? For example, which reliable sources say that the term has "two meanings"? Which say that the second meaning is used "mainly by Jewish authors"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly used in two or more different ways in the article: For instance, this passage is explicitly linking the term to to the Israel Lobby: "In their 2005 opinion piece in Ynetnews, Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer write: "No Jewish lobby has more political power than the 100,000-strong AIPAC organization. This power is one of Israel’s greatest global assets."" Would you argue that the meaning of JL in this sentence is the same as in the rest of the article, that it's a conspiratoric slur? I believe that you use the OR policy to avoid employing some common sense. Actually reading, and not just quoting, is not OR. pertn 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph again

I've tried for a more neutral first paragraph, and have added a "controversy" section, while leaving the "antisemitism" box. This needs a look by some neutral parties. I'd appreciate comments from experienced editors who edit non-Israel related subjects. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, I'm a neutral party, and I've had a look at it. As usual, you've inserted your own biased original research, as outlined below. Who says there's a "controversy" at all? Only a couple of Wikipedia editors, who insist on arguing with what the reliable sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And this, "Luckily, I'm a neutral party," shows an impressing lack of judgement and perception of context. pertn 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Usual POVing

Nagle, you have again reverted in the phrase "The existence of a Jewish lobby is denied in some circles." Of course this unsourced POV assumes that there is a "Jewish lobby", which "some circles deny"; I suppose like "some circles" deny the Holocaust, or that the earth is a sphere. In any event, please propose changes here first, rather than edit-warring in the usual POV. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments on this from editors who are not Israel-related-only article editors, but whom have a broader perspective on Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm not an "Israel-related-only article editor", and "have a broader perspective on Wikipedia." In particular I'm familiar with the WP:NOR policy. What is your source for the claims that "The existence of a Jewish lobby is denied in some circles."? Please quote them making that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For an example of "Jewish lobby denial", see The myth of the `Jewish lobby'. What's so weird about Jewish lobby denial is that there are respectable Jewish sources that say there's a Jewish lobby [13]: "Reference is often made to the "Jewish lobby" in an effort to describe Jewish political influence in the United States. This term is both vague and inadequate. While it is true that American Jews are sometimes represented by lobbyists, such direct efforts to influence policy-makers are but a small part of the lobby’s ability to shape policy." Haaretz says that the Prime Minister of Israel (Olmert) said in 2006 that there's a Jewish lobby [14]: "The prime minister hopes the Jewish lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians." That's clear enough. (Yes, Olmert is known to have a foot-in-mouth problem [15], but he is the Prime Minister). Denial is just silly at this point. Yet at the moment, the article is written to deny the existence of a Jewish lobby. That's factually wrong and has to be fixed. --John Nagle 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it seems that some people believe it to exist, others don't. Have you found a source yet that asserts the existence of "Jewish lobby denial"? That's that darn WP:NOR policy you keep running up against, rearing its ugly head yet again. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

We're probably going to have to go to dispute resolution to deal with the problem. --John Nagle 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the exact reason, actionable within policy, for your insertion of the neutrality tag? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

High profile criticism of Lobby

Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Professor Stephen Walt's book, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', is similar to that of Dr. David Ernest Dukes (which is good, despite what people think of him), but their is also the below:

• Professor James Petras's The Power of Israel in the United States
• Former Representative/Congressman Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out
• Professor Kevin B. MacDonald's Understanding Jewish Influence and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
• Professor Norman G. Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah
• Former US President Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
• Professor Tony Judt's A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert C Prenic (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are their anymore written by academics, professors, scholars and government officials? I ask because British Labour MP, Sir Tam Dalyell and Representative/Congressman James P. Moran are all saying the same thing.

Even Ariel Sharon has said Israel controls the US Government: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.".

Now, before anyone says that I am WP:SOAPBOX please read it again. I have asked a question and to illustrate what I am asking I have given references to exactly the subject matter (and its authors) that I am requesting further information on. Thank you. Robert C Prenic 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA (who, in general, are a pretty nasty and unreliable source) assert that Sharon did not say "We, the Jewish people, control America".[16] Now, it's not a "surprising" quote from him, requiring some really hard evidence, but it appears not to have come from a Western source - and the Israeli radio station deny that they repeated it.

Sharon said many outrageous things - he announced his intention to carry out war-crimes, communal punishment of the Palestinians in March 2002, Powell told him off for it - but even Time magazine reported as if he was proceeding to carry out what he'd threatened. So it's unlikely he's being slandered with an invention - but neither is it proven he did say it. Despite Israel's atrocious record for denying things it's carried out eg ethnic cleansing, Lavon Affair, starting the 1967 war, Qibya massacre, Jenin Massacre etc etc, we mustn't assume they're lying on this one too. PR^talk 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a known false quote. Please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What About NON-Israel Jewish Lobbying, Like Versus Anti-Semitism??

I just read through this whole talk page and the article remains messy and POV. It seems absurd that even references to "Jewish lobbies" where Jews lobby together on issues like anti-Semitic discriminatory laws against Jews or whatever would NOT be covered in such an article. In fact, making it anti-Semitic to use the phrases makes people afraid to SUPPORT such lobbying, marginalizing and ostracizing Jews from larger society, certainly not the goal of those who try to narrow the definition.

Maybe [we can discuss other] uses of the phrase, not to mention the non-anti-Semitic uses mentioned above. Also, then it would be necessary to get rid of the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page. I'm trying to focus on other subjects, but I wish SOMEONE would just go back in there and make this a NON-POV article. Carol Moore 03:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Carol, some of your comment above violates either WP:NPA, WP:CIV, or both. I hope you would consider refactoring. IronDuke 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. IronDuke 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually an issue. One of the references describes complaints by Jewish groups in the European Union about US representatives of the Israel lobby moving in and trying to refocus their agenda on supporting Israel. The Prasad article, "The Myth of the Jewish lobby", expresses unhappiness with Jewish US-based Indian expatriate groups trying to "deploy that power in the service of India, so that India may have something akin to the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship"". There's some tension in the US between the more liberal American Jewish groups and AIPAC, but mostly AIPAC wins (as AIPAC's head lobbyist says, "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel.", and the losers write articles in Tikkun. Complaining about the term "Jewish lobby" marginalizes Jewish organizations that aren't focused on supporting Israel. --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is MOST POV Page I've seen on Wikipedia!

The recent revert war just proves again that this article is extremely tainted with POV. Luckily, I have found SEVERAL sources that talk about the use of the word and note that the ANTI-semitic uses are not necessarily the dominant ones. Anyone who is a neutral WIKI editor and not promoting an agenda can see that an internet search shows that out of the top 100 uses less than half are anti-semitic and most are just synonyms for the Israel Lobby. Yet we are constantly bullied into allowing the minor useage to be the ONLY useage. What's next? Make any use of "Israel Lobby" anti-semitic? Read thoroughly the talk entries above. Carol Moore 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

You need to review WP:NOR. You can't use primary sources to try to prove your point. Also, most of the article dismally fails WP:NEO:

To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.

In the next few days I'm going to be removing most of the original research factoids that list usages of this neologism, rather than sources which actually discuss the use of the term. Please find sources that actually discuss the use of the term, not simply use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A review of policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NOR and WP:NEO

Regretfully, I've had to step in here again to clean up a page that was rapidly filling up with original research, and violations of WP:NEO. Please review [WP:NOR]] thoroughly: You can't use primary sources to try to build a thesis regarding the use of this term; instead, you must use secondary sources which discuss this term. As a result of this failure, most of the article violated WP:NEO:

To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.

I've had to remove the original research factoids that listed usages of this neologism, in favor of sources which actually discuss the use of the term. Please find sources that actually discuss the use of the term, not simply use it - I'm going to have to ruthlessly remove any sources which are mere example of the terms usage, rather than discussions of the term, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. And if you want to POV an article about the "Israel lobby", the rather horrifyingly poorly written article on the subject is thataway. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As an example, John Nagle, Prasad's enumeration of the membership of JINSA is not about the term Jewish lobby, which is the subject of this article. That should be blindingly obvious. Neither, for that matter is Bard's quote about the Israel lobby[17] Keep repeating to yourself before editing, "does this insertion refer to the TERM Jewish lobby". Perhaps that will help. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph from which the Bard quote comes: "Reference is often made to the "Jewish lobby" in an effort to describe Jewish political influence in the United States. This term is both vague and inadequate. While it is true that American Jews are sometimes represented by lobbyists, such direct efforts to influence policy-makers are but a small part of the lobby’s ability to shape policy." Jayjg (talk · contribs) insists that the last sentence of the quote must be omitted. This totally changes the meaning of the quote. Either the last sentence should be present, or the entire quote should be dropped. --John Nagle (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic of Bard's article is the Israel lobby; the first part of Bard's statement notes that the term "Jewish lobby" is sometimes used vaguely and inaccurately to describe the Israel lobby. The second part of the statement then goes on to describe the Israel lobby, which is, after all, the topic of that article. While it may indeed provide context, it only provides context about the Israel lobby, not about the term Jewish lobby, which is the subject of this article. Please restrict the sources to those which describe the term Jewish lobby. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, trying to deal with this by adding even more Bard quote which makes it clear that Bard prefers the term "Israel lobby" over "Jewish lobby". --John Nagle (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, sir. ('Was in reply to Nagle 07:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure all the quotes I include below could be cut up to support the arbitrarily limited definition as well. But wouldn't that be WP:POV?? Feel free to comment on them before I come up with a whole new version of the article making the alternate and widely used (by Jews and gentiles) NON-anti-Semitic definitions co-equal to the current limited definition - and add additional info on history and uses.

Carol Moore 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, have you read anything that has been written above? You cannot use primary sources to advance a position regarding the term "Jewish lobby" - that is forbidden original research. You must find sources that discuss the term "Jewish lobby", not ones that are merely examples of its use, per WP:NEO. Please read this carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a weird interpretation of WP:NEO. "Jewish Lobby" isn't a neologism. As cites in the article point out, the term has a long history. So this is a totally irrelevant objection. Go ahead and revert any bogus claims made on that basis. "Original research" objections can usually be fixed by adding citations and using quotations. Whenever someone deletes something with a questionable claim of "original research", just find a good cite for it and put it back. It's time consuming, and the resulting articles become quote-heavy, but in the end, it comes out OK. You find all sorts of interesting things as you look for citations, too, so it's fun. Enjoy. --John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then. Regarding your other statements, I'm pained and disappointed that you would encourage other editors to violate policy - adding sources only helps solve original research problems if the sources actually explicitly make the point that you are trying to make. Adding more and more primary sources which simply use the term cannot do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If WP:NEO doesn't recognize that some PHRASES used for a number of years may not ever have been described in a neutral (as opposed to partisan) dictionary or encyclopedia, for whatever reason, then WP:NEO has to be changed to reflect that fact. Carol Moore 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Many editors, upon discovering that their additions to Wikipedia violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, attempt to change them so they can add the material. These attempts inevitably fail, mostly because these policies and guidelines are what keeps Wikipedia from turning into a huge collective blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources About Non-Bigoted Uses of Term “Jewish Lobby”

It took about 1/2 hour to find these most recent discussions ABOUT the term. I'm sure a more thorough search could come up with lots more.

"In the Shadow of the Holocaust," Jewish Spectator (Winter) 11-14; reprinted in expanded form as, "Memory and Meaning in the Shadow of the Holocaust," Emory Studies on the Holocaust (1985) 114-22.

The second commandment is: “Get organized and stay organized.” The post-holocaust Jew must belong to and support a whole range of organizations. There is a Jewish lobby. Why shouldn’t there be! There is a gun lobby, an oil lobby, and an Arab lobby. This is America. Lobbying is a right and a political privilege. There are organizations devoted to anti-defamation, education, and support of the State of Israel. There ought to be, and Jews must be active in these organizations.

U.S. Aid to Israel Put in Sharp Focus by Rupert Cornwell Published on Saturday, April 8, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Washington)

Is there a "Jewish Lobby" in the United States? Of course there is, just as there are highly effective lobbies for gun ownership, farmers and for ridding Cuba of communism: How else is it that America persists in its spiteful and futile persecution of Fidel Castro's unlovely but unimportant regime? The answer is the critical Cuban-American vote in the electorally vital Florida.

Israel and the Left, Philip Green, April 17, 2003 (May 5, 2003 issue)

At the same time, it is not anti-Semitic to say, as Moran perhaps intended to say and as is often said on the left, that "the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstacles to a rational American Middle East policy." That statement is arguable, and hyperbolic, but at the same time perfectly reasonable in its broad outline--reasonable judgments are often arguable or hyperbolic. The main point is that there undeniably is a pro-Israel lobby in Washington composed in great part of the representatives of several major Jewish organizations, and if those organizations had their way American policy would always tilt unequivocally toward Israel: just as if the Irish political elite in Massachusetts had had their way policy would for many years have tilted toward Irish Republicanism; or would have tilted toward Mussolini in the 1930s if the major Italian-American organizations had had their way. As Michael Kinsley pointed out in Slate, one of the strongest claims ever made for the power of this lobby can be found on the website of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Do Zionists Run America? By Allen Ruff. A review of James Petras’s book The Power of Israel in the United States

What sets Petras’ work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms “Jewish lobby,” “Israel lobby” and “Zionist lobby” are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel’s racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction. (In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, he states that he is justified in using the term “Jewish lobby” since that is what the Israelis use when discussing political support in the United States — as if adopting the Zionist movement’s cynical appropriation of all things Jewish serves any progressive purpose.)

There is No “Israel Lobby” By Kim Petersen 04/26/06

Since the “Israel Lobby” does not represent “Arab-Israeli” interests, and since it represents Jewish interests worldwide, the label “Jewish lobby” (there is no need to capitalize the “l”) would be much more accurate. Also, “Zionist lobby” would seem to be less accurate because the lobby’s goals are not limited to Zionism but include policies dedicated to the interests of certain Jewish “elites.” So long as it is not implied that all Jews (since modern Jews never formed a coherent ethnic or national group, but are peoples who have shared somewhat the same religion, how can one address them as a homogenous group? For instance, if a Ukrainian Jew renounces Judaism and declares atheism, then why should he be treated as Jew that he is no longer?) are included as lobby members, then there is no reason not to label the “Jewish lobby” for what it is. Most people would not, after all, object to the label “Catholic lobby” or “Arab lobby,” so why should the label “Jewish lobby” be controversial?

Regarding the labeling, Blum responds, “I used ‘Israel Lobby’ because that’s what the authors of the report I referred to used. And the purpose of the lobby is to help Israel, not Jews per se.”

With all due respect to the incisive anti-imperialist Blum, he is remarkably off base when he says: “the purpose of the lobby is to help Israel.” Since, as stated, approximately one-fifth of “Israelis” are Arabs, and since the lobby has no intention of helping them whatsoever, the purpose as stated by Blum is, intentionally or not, fallacious. To be factually accurate, one should state that the intention is to help the “Jews of Israel” and not “Israel” per se. Blum, however, does see merit in changing the designation of the “Israel lobby.”

Carol Moore 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, have you been reading the arguments above, and WP:NOR and WP:NEO? The first three quotations are discussing whether or not a Jewish lobby exists - they do not discuss the term "Jewish lobby" itself. This article is about the term Jewish lobby. If you want to write about the Israel lobby in the United States, there's a whole article on it for you to do so. In addition, the second and fourth source are not reliable, so could not be used in any event. The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice" - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dissident_Voice_(third_nomination) for detail as to why this is so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay is correct. Also, to clarify, we could only ever use these cites as examples of the term being used, we can't make that assertion that they are examples of "non-bigoted usage" because then we are drawing a non published conclusion which is clearly WP:OR. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of the wiki-lawyering above. The bottom line remains that in the real world the word is used MORE as a synonym for Israel Lobby or for miscellaneous non-Israel related Jewish-oriented lobbying (like making it illegal to deny the Holocaust or getting more police money to defend synagogues from vandals). If in Wikipedia-weird world it is allowed only the one meaning of a bigoted use, that shows the weakness of wikipedia. However, the search for articles - written or yet to be written - which clarify this issue shall continue. Carol Moore 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Which cite are you talking about? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you after I restudy the issue. Now that I have read even more carefully WP:NPOV much more carefully and done the tutuorial. Carol Moore 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

A review of policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV

Does WP:OR Trump WP:NPOV?? That's the question I asked here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Does_WP:OR_Trump_WP:NPOV.3F.3F Hopefully it will engender an enlightening discussion. Carol Moore 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Relevant quotes from Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

• First: Negotiating neutrality with others - ...in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have.
• Word ownership - A common basis for prolonged NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it...In fact, many words have multiple meanings, and it's not just that one person sometimes uses "liberal" to refer to a political movement and sometimes to refer to generous use of an ingredient in a recipe. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.
• Space and balance - An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.
• Information suppression - A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

• Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:

o Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. o Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). o Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:

o Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. o Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). o Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

• 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. We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated.

Finally, it recommends if there is a problem like those described above a template should be added UNTIL all editors agree the problem has been resolved. So I'm adding.

Carol Moore 06:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, which reliable sources that discuss the term "Jewish lobby" are missing from the article? Can you point me to them? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a break from thinking about this topic, except my relevant comment on an Arbitration request. I have recommended there be a permanent Ombudsman on all Israel-Palestine and related issue to deal with chronic policy violations by partisans.

I believe there is at least one reliable sources quote about neutral uses of the term in what I put up above that is a firm basis for starting to list NEUTRAL uses of “Jewish Lobby.” I believe I can find others in next few days. They do exist and it is WP:POV to try to EXCLUDE them in debilitating edit wars, per Talk:Jewish_lobby#A_review_of_policies_and_guidelines.2C_particularly_WP:NPOV above.

Carol Moore 04:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol can you say which source you mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

---

With all these messages last few days, just found this one. I am going to look back through the Green article and see if I missed anything. Plus I have some other leads.

Meanwhile, please, read and think about the WP:NPOV tutorial quoted more fully above on:

• Negotiating neutrality with others
• Word ownership
• Space and balance
• Information suppression
• Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way...(see list)

And especially look over: Wikipedia: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.

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated.

Doesn't it say LIST??? - it doesn't say making such a list is WP:OR or that a commonly used phrase only can be listed if some reliable source explicitly defines that very very specific use of the word. The whole tenor of the section is towards inclusion of important information - not exclusion on WP:POV grounds.

As long there remain editors contending - as many have on this talk page in the past and one or two do now -- that this article excludes the obvious fact that Jewish groups and the mainstream press use the phrase Jewish Lobby in non-antisemitic ways, and excludes a couple such examples, then this article is excluding information in a WP:POV fashion and that "LIMITED" template belongs front and center.

And of course the more time I have to spend explaining this, the less time I have to work on a) finding such a definition anyway and b) improving the article. Once I finish taking my break from editing the article as recommended by wikipedia when there is a dispute. Maybe you all should take some time off too. Meanwhile the "LIMITED" template should remain. It should have been here for the last couple years. Carol Moore 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

---

---

But Carol, you still have to bring sources that comply with WP:V and WP:NEO, that is, reliable sources that discuss the term. Both conditions must be satisfied. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See response (User:Armon) at Carol Moore 17:10, 11 January 2008 below Carol MooreCarolMooreDC talk

"Jewish lobby" vs. "Israel lobby"

Added a new section, "Jewish lobby" vs. "Israel lobby", with cites from sources that compare and contrast the terms. Moved quotes relevant to that subject to that paragraph. This directly addresses the controversial issue - are "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" the same thing, or what? A number of the cited sources speak to that specific issue, so it makes sense to put them together. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon (talk · contribs) cleaned up that section and did a good job. I think we're getting back on track here. --John Nagle (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I still didn't like the second Bard sentence because it's unclear, but I've attempted to summarize his opening comments. I think your last sentence was better as intro, and I just removed the "Usage" subheading because they all seemed to be addressing that issue. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I liked your changes, but I changed the title to "Usage", since many of the items in the section really had nothing to do with "Jewish lobby" vs. "Israel lobby". Also, I removed the sentence "The term "Israel lobby" is not considered derogatory. AIPAC refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel lobby". The term "Jewish lobby" is more controversial." since that was pure unsourced original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK well the The term "Israel lobby" is not considered derogatory. AIPAC refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel lobby". The term "Jewish lobby" is more controversial. was problematic on those grounds. I think you could make a case that the cited examples were making that distinction, (though she refers to the "Zionist lobby", "...Queen Noor is not so insensitive or crass as to actually use the phrase "Jewish Lobby" as well as "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity.") but that's a conclusion we'll have to leave the reader to make. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jayjg's objections, I split the "Jewish lobby vs. Israel lobby" and "Usage" sections, changed the wording about AIPAC's use of the term, and added a cite. We can't quite say that the term "Israel lobby" is noncontroversial, but we can certainly say that it's used by the Israel lobby itself. The following cites clearly indicate that "Jewish lobby" is controversial. (If it weren't, we wouldn't be having edit wars here, of course.) --John Nagle (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what the cites clearly show is that the phrase is regarded as antisemitic. There really isn't any "controversy" about it. That's the problem. What we need to find, is something which says something like, "the term "Jewish lobby" is sometimes used naively and without antisemitic intent when speaking about the Pro-Israeli lobby." Once we find that, then we can include it. Seriously though, I've been looking and I haven't been able to cite it. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could find such a statement from a reliable source. Even that article from Allen Ruff from the "New Socialist" (above) speaks critically of Petras's use of the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just wrote above at the bottom of Talk:Jewish_lobby#A_review_of_policies_and_guidelines.2C_particularly_WP:NPOV, I believe that Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view statements undermine this theory that there must be a quote defining each and every use of a term ever used to express a political position:

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.

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated.

Again I believe it authorizes listing views without some outside source defining every term = though I'll keep looking for a good definition anyway. Meanwhile, the article remains "LIMITED" by excluding nonantisemitic uses -- calling them "naive" would be very WP:POV. Also, as two quotes I listed showed, Jewish lobby obviously IS used as a positive phrase. And even as a critic of Israel I support the right of any ethnic, religious group to lobby, especially if it is lobbying against laws that might be enforced against it domestically. Like if David Duke or Ann Coulter got elected president. I mean what could antisemites want more than to discourage and prevent Jews from proclaiming their right to lobby as organized Jewish groups??? Carol Moore 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, I was using "naively" in the sense that someone may use a poor choice of words without knowing what its connotations are. I don't think there any objections to including a discussion of this use of the term so long as we can do it according to policy. Even if we accept your argument per WP:NPOV, it still doesn't override WP:V and WP:OR.

Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. See what I mean? <<-armon->> (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR#Sources starts off saying: '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.

In opposition it defines Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position as: Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. It continues saying: 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.

LISTING per Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view defacto means summarize explicit views of sources and either provide references (OR quote with references) reliable source 1 says A; reliable source 2 say A; reliable source 3 says A; reliable source 4 says A.

Therefore the following is proper: "Jewish Lobby" is a term often used by Jewish organizations and media and mainstream media to describe organizing by Jewish groups on a broad range of issues. Followed either by references or quotes with references.

As for WP:V I believe I already have examples explicitly stating the TERM is neutral - or even positive, not to mention examples of the term being used in a neutral fashion. I'll give an example below of how double standards in verifiability are being used already within this article before presenting my changes.

Carol Moore 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, WP:NOR is very clear. The first sentence states 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. You are trying to put forward a synthesis, based on original research you have done. Which reliable source makes the claim that "Jewish Lobby" is a term often used by Jewish organizations and media and mainstream media to describe organizing by Jewish groups on a broad range of issues.? Please name the source that says that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Some general notes

Regarding the less controversial issues:

• The "history" paragraph is weak. The only cite is to an Indian journalist, and he's writing primarily about current affairs. Does anyone have "To Free a People: American Jewish Leaders and The Jewish Problem in Eastern Europe, 1890-1914" by Gary Dean Best? [18]. This is a history of the birth of the Jewish lobby in America, back before there was an Israel. I just ordered a copy.

Found some more history. "Canada’s Middle-East Policy and the “Jewish Lobby” by Adam Cutler", is an academic analysis of the twists and turns of Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East since 1945. The paper treats the "Jewish lobby" as real, and discusses its (modest) effectiveness and influence in Canada. Worth a read. --John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The present article is rather US-centric. The "Israel lobby" is mostly a US phenomenon. Does "Jewish lobby" mean something else outside the US? Does that matter? --John Nagle (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is US-centric, but I suppose that's because the "Jewish Lobby" conspiracy theories are the American version -just like Jewish Bolshevism was the Soviet one. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting relevant Haaretz article which also talks about US lobbies dominating European ones. An American Jewish lobby at the European Union.

Carol Moore 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

"Last Thursday a gala evening was held to celebrate the opening of the Transatlantic Institute, a Jewish research institute whose declared aim is no less than strengthening the ties between the United States and the countries of the European Union (the undeclared aim is to serve as a lobby)." Carol, in what possible way do you think that link is relevant to the article? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good citation. It's from Haaretz, a mainstream Israeli publication, and both uses the term "Jewish lobby" and describes the organization of such a lobby in Europe. The Transatlantic Institute, the organization discussed, seems to focus almost entirely on issues related to Israel's interestes, rather than Jewish interests in Europe. Read their position papers; they're mostly about Middle East issues. The two main exceptions are a paper on post-Castro Cuba and one on what to do about Muslim population growth in Europe. Other than that, they're mostly focused on the usual US-based Israel lobby issues. That's not surprising; the Transatlantic Institute is financed by the American Jewish Committee. Here a reporter at Haaretz used the terms "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" synonymously, which is interesting but not a big deal. --John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't actually discuss the term "Jewish lobby", does it? It's just another primary source that uses the term. Remember, we're trying to avoid original research here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This Article Link was a response to John Nagle's question above: Does "Jewish lobby" mean something else outside the US? Just something he could read and decide if it answered his other questions. This would be a more relevant quote, though whole article about Jewish Organizations doing lobbying. "Harris: There are some Jewish organizations who have thought about going in and creating, I quote a `lobby,' or trying to bring American political tactics, importing them to Brussels.'" Carol Moore 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The thing is, it's about a Jewish lobby group, and it's an American one anyway. It's just about some internal politics among Jewish groups. It tells us nothing about this article's topic. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess he thought it did if he asked the question. I'm not a mind reader, just answering a question :-)

Carol Moore 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Removed "allegations" from lead sentence, per WP:WEASEL

Improved wording, per WP:WEASEL: "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them." --John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, a number of reliable sources have stated that, rather than being "true", the claim that there is a "Jewish lobby" is, in fact, and antisemitic conspiracist stereotype. I'm not sure why you're ignoring that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the first sentence. We aren't talking about a specific lobby group which is Jewish, but the idea that there some group of "Jews behind the scenes" who have undue influence. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "allegation" is uncited original research. It may be derogatory, but that's a different issue. Searching Google for Allegation "Jewish lobby" turns up the Wikipedia entry, plus various allegations about or concerning the Jewish lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have support for the claim that it's a derogatory term, and that's covered in the lead paragraph, although indirectly, in a "guilt by association" way. That could be improved. --John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from [19], an academic analysis of Canada's Jewish lobby: "Canada’s Jewish community is better organised and takes politics more seriously than other ethnic groups (Riddell-Dixon 1985:46; Taras and Weinfeld 1990:670). The primary organisations in its lobby are the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Zionist Federation and the fraternal organisation B’nai Brith Canada. In 1967, as a response to the perceived unpreparedness of Canada’s Jewish community to lobby for Israel, these groups created the Canada-Israel Committee (CIC), which remains the foremost pro-Israel lobby in Canada until today. However, various Jewish lobbies have presented themselves over the years. The United Zionist Council was founded in 1941, transformed into the Zionist Organisation of Canada, and eventually reconstituted as the Canadian Zionist Federation in 1967 (Taras 1989:44-50). Canada’s Jewish lobbies have taken a strategy of behind the scenes lobbying, favouring quiet diplomacy over publicity seeking. The CIC does not threaten MPs regarding the effect of their actions on Jewish voting; rather, MPs are led to draw their own conclusions. While only six seats have over ten percent Jewish voters, Canada’s Jewish community votes in numbers exceeding the national average. While it is likely that few Canadian-Jews swing their votes based on Middle-East issues, the “Jewish vote” remains on the mind of political strategists, leaders, and candidates (Taras 1989:52; Lyon 1992-1993:8-15)."

That academic author, who seems to have no particular position on the subject, simply writes of the lobby as a reality, and discusses its history and structure at some length. --John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John, you continue to bring examples of the use of the term, rather than sources which discuss the term. It has been pointed out many times already that mere examples of usage are a violation of both WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Please bring sources which discuss the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If the existing cites aren't satisfactory, we can also add this one: [20]

As is well-known, the Procotols was a forged document written in Russia in 1897, alleging that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy existed. This document attempted to explain a seeming contradiction: Jews were (are) prominent both in capitalist and in socialist/communist circles: the ‘explanation’ was that both were shams: capitalist and communist Jews were not really at odds, as it might seem. They were in fact united (secretly) in a bid for world domination. Although this conspiracy theory lay at the heart of Nazism it is also widespread outside neo-fascist groupings. Many of these are right-wing/neo-Nazi (e.g. Pamyat in Russia) but the Protocols have had some influence on movements with some claim to progressive credentials. The Protocols have also had some influence elsewhere, so that Eyptian and Syrian state-sponsored TV serials have produced soaps which dramatise the allegations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Mohamed, 2002; Kaba and Tubiana, 2002).

That some type of shadowy Jewish conspiracy exists is commonsense, taken-for-granted element in many quarters: e.g. rumours that the predominance of neo-conservatives in the USA is a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ (Greenspan, 2003; Berlet, 2004; Interview, 2004 ). Perhaps even more common is a vague suspicion that such a conspiracy might exist but that it is impolite to articulate this. A contemporary form of this fear is the phrase ‘the Jewish lobby’ without mentioning other ‘lobbies’ or differentiating Jews who have different political positions on a number of questions, including Israel and Palestine. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good sources, I'll work it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "Jewish Lobby" in the above. So it's not really relevant, is it? This isn't an article about the Protocols of Zion or antisemitism in general.

Carol Moore 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I've bolded the phrase so you'll have less trouble seeing it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I see it. But this is using the footnotes for absurd POV pushing that would not be allowed in the text. I deleted it on those grounds - as well as two other POV pushing quote farmy quotes in references. If it's so important, make it part of the discussion. I don't see other articles that have paragraphs of quotes in the references. Carol Moore 06:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Please stop deleting reliable sources that discuss the term "Jewish lobby". It's rather bizarre that you would delete the very material that proves the relationship. For an example of an article that uses quotations in the references, please see Holocaust Denial as one example among thousands. Lots of other articles have quotes in the references, please don't delete them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AIPAC sentence

John, I notice you keep adding the sentence The term "Israel lobby" is preferred by AIPAC, which refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". in various forms. From what I can see the AIPAC page doesn't mention the term "Jewish lobby", nor does it anywhere state that it prefers the term "Israel lobby" to "Jewish lobby". Please be mindful of the original research policy. If you can find a source that that discusses the term "Jewish lobby" in the context of AIPAC, that's fine, but so far I haven't seen one. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good one. "Taming Levithian", from The Economist, March 17, 2007. "These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby. This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears." Even better, there's "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby", which is by AIPAC's former chief lobbyist, writing in the New Jersey Jewish News. (That's worth reading; it's a frank analysis of AIPAC's power by the man who wielded it.) That seems to clearly settle this issue. --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither one of these sources supports the claim that 'AIPAC prefers the term 'Israel Lobby' to 'Jewish Lobby'. If that's all you have, you're right, it really does settle this issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, John, neither source actually discusses the term "Jewish lobby". They are, again, both examples of the use of the term Jewish lobby. In addition, the edits you have made seem mostly about attempting to get as many references to AIPAC into the article as possible; thus you continually quote sentences from various articles which use the term (or similar ones) that refer to AIPAC, not to "Jewish lobby". It's also clear the the Bloomfield reference from which you've cherry picked sentences is actually talking about the "pro-Israel lobby", as he terms it. Anyway, per WP:NEO, as has been explained many times, we need sources that discuss the term, not use it. Quoting WP:NEO: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. Please also review the comments of User:G-Dett, who usually disagrees with my statements and edits, has come out fully in support of my insistence that we abide by the WP:NOR and WP:NEO in this article in this comment here.Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V - comparing Jewish Virtual Library and Dissident Voice

User:Jayjg writes towards end of : Talk:Jewish_lobby#Reliable_Sources_About_Non-Bigoted_Uses_of_Term_.E2.80.9CJewish_Lobby.E2.80.9D: The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice" - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dissident_Voice_(third_nomination) for detail as to why this is so.

Why was article deleted? No Sources. WP:ATT The only google news sources were 13 references to authors who write for it on one specific day. No report on google web searches. And based on lack of any sources a couple people claimed it wasn’t “notable enough.”

What reference on Jewish Lobby has an article that as a template saying This article does not cite any references or sources. - could it be Jewish Virtual Library?? So what proof is there that it is noteable enough? (Just to prove the point I just put a notability template on it.) Do we see a double standard here?? Should I call for deletion of the article to get someone to improve it??

And let’s not even start on the WP:POV of the source. The existing (non-sourced) wiki article calls it: “The Jewish Virtual Library is an online encyclopedia published by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), notable for its strong pro-Israel views.”

There is not a significant difference in the number of references to Jewish Virtual Library on Google news and web compared to Dissident Voice, and I’m sure sufficient quality quotes about both topics could be found.

1/11/2008: Google news search

• 1 ref article by the director of Jewish Virtual Library
• 4 ref to articles by established writers for DissidentVoice

1/11/2008: Google web search

• 119,000 references to “Jewish Virtual Library”
• 57,000 references to “dissidentvoice.org” (since 204,000 were to “dissident voice” and some of those also will be the publication, the number doubtless is much higher)

Should I quickly put together a WELL SOURCED article on DissidentVoice.Org since Sourcing WAS the only real issue? Why not??? How can I find the original article cause I know they keep deleted articles somewhere on wikipedia? Thanks. Carol Moore 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, you claim that "4 ref to articles by established writers for DissidentVoice" - but none of them actually use DissidentVoice as a reference, do they? In any event, DissidentVoice has been deleted by Wikipedia as a non-notable website; if you want that deletion reviewed, you can certainly take it to WP:DRV. Also, I'll change the Bard reference to the earlier quote from his book The Water's Edge and Beyond, since you object so strongly to the Jewish Virtual Library website. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to when you wrote above: "The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice".." Change noted and will check out maybe someday :-) Thanks for link to how to appeal to get article back.

Carol Moore 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Islam and antisemitism - a Good Model for This Page

First and only introductory sentence: This article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. The nature and extent of antisemitism in Islam is a hotly-debated issue in contemporary Middle East politics.

Section 1: Antisemitism in the context of Islam

First sentence: Scholars describe and analyze antisemitism within the context of Islam in different ways, depending partly on how they define antisemitism. For example:

Then it LISTS different views. That is how THIS article should be structured. The "phrase" Jewish Lobby is just as controversial as the "concept" Islam and antisemtism (as this talk page has shown for a couple of years) and there is no substantive reason they should be treated differently. Carol Moore 09:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

...and the different views are cited -are they not? <<-armon->> (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, once bigger issues are resolved, the Islam and antisemitism article will need a more meaningful lead as well.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's "controversial" as you claim, because antisemites use the term, and then deny their own obvious antisemtisim. Not one of the antisemitic allegations is legitimate. Yahel Guhan 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Handling_NPOV_disputes

I mentioned this above but evidently should have explicitly quoted it (emphasis added):

Note that the templates that can be used for NPOV concerns generally suppose that the suspected NPOV problem is explained on the article's or category's talk page. When all NPOV-related issues detailed on the talk page have been handled, the template should be removed from the article or category page. In most cases, however, the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV.

I am working on improvements to make this an NPOV article, but it doesn't help that those who constantly revert everything on WP:OR refuse to comment on my last few posts explaining why this article remains POV and explaining how to make it NPOV. I'd like to avoid revert edit wars on the article itself by coming to an understanding here first the deals with POV concerns expressed by a majority of editors over the last couple year. Constantly reverting that template - and ignoring my last two posts - makes me think there is no desire for real discussion, not to mention understanding. Carol Moore 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Patience. This is normal when the usual suspects are involved. Keep working at it, cite everything, do research to find better sources, revert blatant deletions, and eventually the article will improve. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John, your statement regading "the usual suspects" is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, as is your advice that people edit-war. User:G-Dett, who usually disagrees with my statements and edits, has come out fully in support of my insistence that we abide by WP:NOR and WP:NEO in this article in this comment here. Are you including her in "the usual suspects"? Please use the Talk: page for its actual purpose, and please ensure your edits comply with WP:NOR and WP:NEO. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that violating clearly stated Wikipedia policy is no problem with some people, as is now being reviewed elsewhere. Finishing up one other wiki project today and then spending the rest of the day on an important personal blog entry. Then I'll go find other discussions of James Petras' fascinating discussion of the use of the term "Jewish Lobby" so that I don't have to put back up the deleted Dissident Voice article right away per Talk:Jewish_lobby#WP:V_-_comparing_Jewish_Virtual_Library_and_Dissident_Voice. PS: also note I like to put a draft of the whole new article right here on the talk page so no one can claim I didn't seek consensus. So when I add my changes it will be a whole article, not piece meal. Carol Moore 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, serious issues regarding WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and WP:NEO have been cited regarding your edits and Talk: page statements. Please do not try to replace an entire article with your own version; rather, discuss and get agreement on changes on the Talk: page first. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:NEO is totally irrelevant; this isn't a neologism. WP:V isn't a problem; everything is cited, even over-cited. Claims of "original research" seem to be exaggerated. Actually, we're headed for a well-cited quote farm, which is what usually happens in these articles.

As for uses of the term, the head lobbyist for the Jewish lobby calls it the Jewish lobby. Deal with it. --John Nagle (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Vidal quote needs a better cite; the link is just to the Wikipedia entry for Le Monde Diplomatique. I've been reading some of Vidal's articles. See his Les pompiers pyromanes de l’antisémitisme, where he does say that that the term "Jewish lobby" is used in France only by the extreme right. But he footnotes that with "It is not the same in the United States, where the Jewish lobby, which describes itself as well, is just one of countless groups of influence officially involved with the institution." (Google auto-translation) Then he goes on to talk about some French group of Jews who are considering forming a lobby. "If there is a lobby, because we are attacked." (Confused Google auto-translation. I think they meant "If there is to be a lobby, it is because we are attacked"). Anyway, we're finding more cites and more points of view. --John Nagle (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother with Google, here's the English version. The footnote states: "(1) The situation is different in the US, where the self-described Jewish lobby is only one of many influence groups that have official standing with institutions and authorities." Seems to be a factual error. That is, unless there is a lobby group actually named "Jewish lobby" in the US. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, then we have another confirmed Jewish source using the term "Jewish lobby" in an article about the Jewish lobby. I also just found an apt quote from the editor of The Forward. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is meaningless for the article. First of all, the quote is out of context. Secondly, the fact that someone who's Jewish happened to string the two words together sometime, still doesn't tell us anything about the term. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We're here, we're the Jewish lobby, get used to it.

As I look for more references, I'm seeing more uses of the term by leaders of Jewish organizations. I've cited uses by the editor of The Forward, the head lobbyist from AIPAC, and the head of a Jewish organization in France. Maybe we need to go with an intro like that from Queer: "Its usage is considered controversial and underwent substantial changes over the course of the 20th Century with some LGBT re-claiming the term as a means of self-empowerment. The term is still considered by some to be offensive and derisive, and by others as a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society." --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but your example above is talking ABOUT the term "queer". Someone simply USING the term, especially when speaking about a particular organization which is Jewish, is not the same thing. You can't insert WP:OR in order to make a similar case about reclaiming the term "Jewish Lobby" unless the cite explicitly says that is what they are doing. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for more neutral language for the lead paragraph. I agree that any talk about "reclaiming" the term would be unjustified. We need to capture the idea that sometimes it's derogatory, and sometimes it's just people from the Jewish lobby talking about the Jewish lobby in the ordinary course of business. --John Nagle (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am moving the controversial quote taken out of context and given undue prominence into the Usage section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored cited material removed in POV edit.

The issue about "the term" is really a red herring. We now have enough cites to show that the subject of the article, the "Jewish lobby", is a real thing, and can proceed on that basis. If you want to discuss the term as an linguistic abstraction, the place for that is Wictionary. Also, it's inappropriate to repeatedly claim "original research" for additions which consist almost entirely of cited quotes. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More importantly as I have said a couple times above, removing this is direct violation of policy per: WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which 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.

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them....

Carol Moore 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The problem is, you haven't actually brought any other sources that discuss the term; instead, it's all sources that use the term. You can't misquote an NPOV tutorial and hope that it will allow you to ignore WP:NOR. In addition, you simply cannot delete [[WP:|reliable sources]] that actually do discuss the term, as you have done here:[21] Please don't do this again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm defending Mr. Nagle's right to do so now which may not be the same one's I'd pick but the are a relevant attempt to WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which says: We should then list all points of views..." I'll get around to it after I give Ron Paul et al a good spanking on my blog tonight.

Carol Moore 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

You are not lobbying for someone's freedom of speech rights. Sources used in this article must discuss the term, not merely use them. And please do not remove sourced material again. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not freedom of speech rights, this is wikipedia POLICY. Please see WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which 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. We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them...." Also my changes to Goldberg quote make it infinitely more relevant to this article. Carol Moore 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

You either misunderstand, or misapply what WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view says as it relates to this article. Yes, we should list all points of view - but in the context of an article about a term, these points of view are of the form "The term J L means..." or "The term JL is used by..". They do not include any and all POV that happen to use the term. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the exact phrase from the policy you are alleging about "terms". Please quote me the part that says that nothing can EVER be put wikipedia that doesn't have some precise definition from a reliable source, only a listing of things said about the term that in fact make it clear what it means to different people. I will then go through and delete about 10,000 articles.

Meanwhile WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view clearly says "We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them." Remember the various policies are supposed to work together cooperatively, not be used as an excuse to just delete stuff cause WP:Idontlikeit.

Carol Moore 04:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Quote from Michael Bloomfield

User:Nagle, you keep inserting this original research into the article:

AIPAC's former head lobbyist, Michael Bloomfield, in his article "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby", provides an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda. On the relationship between U.S. Jewish organizations and AIPAC, he writes "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel."

The insertion is unacceptable for a number of reasons.

1. As has been pointed out by a number of people, including User:G-Dett [22] and more recently User:Georgewilliamherbert [23], this article must bring sources that discuss the term, not use the term, per WP:NEO. The term "Jewish lobby" is not found in any encyclopedia or dictionary, and is therefore a neologism.
2. The article you brought, in any event, does not use the term "Jewish lobby". The author, in fact, consistently uses the term "pro-Israel lobby". It is only the headline that uses the term Jewish lobby; as I'm sure you're aware, it is editors who write headlines, not article authors - in this case, the editor of a small ethnic community newspaper. Thus, even if it didn't violate WP:NEO, as it does, it still would not be appropriate.
3. Your description of the article was itself entirely POV original research. According to whom was the article "an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda"? According only to User:Nagle. And please do not insert the quote again, leaving out this POV sentence - as outlined above, the source is in any event unacceptable, this point merely outlined how poorly you treated this unacceptable source.

It is apparent that you are simply doing a google search for +"Jewish lobby" +AIPAC, and then choosing whichever uses of the term best match your argument/speculation that the Jewish lobby... exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see this Policy WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which 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. We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them...." Carol Moore 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Yes, Carol, we've seen your mistaken understanding of the NPOV tutorial more than once. Rather than continually repeating this boilerplate comment, please respond to the specific issues raised above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to tell me specifically who said what was mistaken about what, since so much was said here. Also, because so much said, I don't know which specific issues you want responded to. Carol Moore 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Quote from the Economist

User:Nagle, you keep inserting this quote into the article: The Economist writes of the "American-Jewish lobby": "These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby. This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears."

The insertion is unacceptable for a number of reasons.

1. As has been pointed out by a number of people, including User:G-Dett [24] and more recently User:Georgewilliamherbert [25], this article must bring sources that discuss the term, not use the term, per WP:NEO. The term "Jewish lobby" is not found in any encyclopedia or dictionary, and is therefore a neologism.
2. Your insertion of the lengthy third and fourth sentences that had nothing whatsoever to do with the term "Jewish lobby". As is painfully obvious, it was only included for the purpose of linking to and highlighting AIPAC, and pointing out how "scary" and "powerful" they are. And please do not insert the quote again, leaving out these irrelevant sentences - as outlined above, the source is in any event unacceptable, this point merely outlined how poorly you treated this unacceptable source.

It is apparent that you are simply doing a google search for +"Jewish lobby" +AIPAC, and then choosing whichever uses of the term best match your argument/speculation that the Jewish lobby... exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NEO doesn't use the word "discuss" in the text or anything else that supports your point.
• "Jewish Lobby" is not a neologism. If you continue to make this false assertion I shall take advice WP:NEO DOES include - that neologisms be deleted from wikipedia, using as evidence the repeated assertions of you and others that it IS a neologism to back up my contention the whole article should be deleted.

Carol Moore 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Yes, Carol, we've seen your mistaken understanding of the NPOV tutorial more than once. Rather than continually repeating this boilerplate comment, please respond to the specific issues raised above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Mr. Nagle's additions are cover under this Policy WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view which 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. We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them...." Carol Moore 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Carol, you and John Nagle are both misinterpreting the policies. Misinterpreting them and arguing about it is merely annoying, though continuing to do so over very extended periods of time rises to the level of possibly disruptive behavior which Wikipedia admins can take action regarding. Edit warring over it, however, is a good way to get uninvolved admins to lock the page or block accounts.

You have stated, and John has stated, what you believe this article should contain. I understand and respect your opinions, but you're fairly actively causing problems over it, not just advocating a case. I have not to my knowledge interacted with this topic before on Wikipedia, so I count as an uninvolved administrator, and I believe that this case requires uninvolved admin warnings, before it gets worse and requires uninvolved admin blocks or other sanctions.

Please slow down and discuss more constructively on the talk page here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are an administrator. Since you have opined John and I are misinterpreting the policies, don't you have a responsibility to explain how?

• If "Jewish Lobby" is a neologism, should the article be deleted? If not, should others stop using it as an excuse to block opinions they don't like, even when sourced? (And I haven't even gotten around to showing how the ones I did above were relevant sourced ones.)
• Does WP:OR make it Wiki-illegal to ever list anything that has not been listed by an outside source? I remain unclear on that.
• If so, then what is WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view talking about by "lists"?
• What other policies are we misinterpreting. Obviously we feel the other editors are a bit biased so having an outside party explain would be very helpful. Thanks.

Carol Moore 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Regarding these specific questions:

• I think that it's technically a neologism but is sufficiently well established that there are some reliable references which discuss the term's significance and usage, beyond just using it. No, I don't think that the article should be deleted. There's a grey area when serious "academic" study starts to cover something and when it shows up in encyclopedias and serious reference or academic journals enough to be obviously not a neologism. It's somewhere in there.
• WP:OR is intended to prevent two things: One, including outside sources that are unreliable original research (such as, your own website / blog, etc), and Two, creating new novel content here on Wikipedia that does not have external sources. It also serves as a quality control element in reviewing what possible sources are relevant, along with WP:RS. The combination of WP:RS and WP:OR creates a combined criterion which is one of Wikipedia's core precepts... to quote from WP:OR (first paragraph): This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.
• WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view is there to provide balance to our coverage of controversial topics. But it and related NPOV concerns do not mean that any fringe belief is entitled to space in Wikipedia just because someone comes here and asserts it. On the contrary - see the second paragraph in its section on Space and Balance: Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them. Things that are important are documented in reliable sources outside Wikipedia. If the specifics that you and John want to include are widespread and notable, they will have such coverage outside Wikipedia. While the mere existence and usage of the term, and what it means, are well documented, adding more instances of its usage doesn't add anything important or interesting to the article and isn't encyclopedic content per se.

I'll leave it at that for the time being. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Are you, Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), claiming that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism? We need to get that settled to proceed. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a clear black and white correct answer to that. It's a new (word/phrase/term) and does not appear in dictionaries or phrasebooks or political science texts to my knowledge. But it's been moderately widely used in certain types of discourse, and that is verifiable.

Given that it's the subject of the article, and not a descriptive element within it, there's a certain degree to which the question is moot. We're allowed to have articles on new things (physical, events, people, language, science). But how we describe them has to fall under WP:RS and WP:NOR. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition: Neologism: "a new word, usage, or expression". [26]. We have cites back to at least 1978.[27] 30 years should be enough to overcome any claim that it's "new". --John Nagle (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is 1978 the cutoff? 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. The word prequel is described a neologism, and it has been around since 1958. "Holohoax" is a neologism that has been around since the 1970s. On top of that, as explained above (and to which you conspicuously failed to respond), most of the quote you brought from the Economist was irrelevant anyway - it was only included for the purpose of having the term "AIPAC" included in the article as many times as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Until the term in question is included in a serious encyclopedia or dictionary, I think it is safe to consider it to be a neologism. As to the 3 quotes under discussion:

1. Bloomberg doesn't use the term at all. Just because some editor slapped a sensationalist headline, it would be wrong to include as a link, let alone to quote in an serious encyclopedia.
2. That pseudonymous/anonymous opinion piece in the Economist is completely unencyclopedic. Sorry to see the E. deteriorated so much.
3. OTOH, I think that JJ Goldberg/The Forward is worth being mentioned because it is relevant: he does discuss what he calls "Jewish lobby" and goes into some history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Original research" issue

OK. Now that we've dealt with the "neologism" issue, let's move on to the "original research" issue. For reference, look at this version of the article, which has most of the items recently deleted as "original research".

• The Economist writes of the "American-Jewish lobby": "These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby. This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears." (Lexington (psued.) (March 15th, 2007). "Taming Levithian". London: The Economist. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))

Now that's from The Economist, one of the more prestigious political journals in the world, and one with a good reputation for neutrality. It's a direct quote; there's no original text at all other than a very brief introduction to the quote. The article both uses the exact phrase "Jewish lobby" and is about the Jewish lobby.

Armon (talk · contribs) deleted this quote [28] with the edit comment "(rm OR yet again, the cite has to be ABOUT the term)". He's echoing Jayjg (talk · contribs), who previously deleted the same quote.[29].

• AIPAC's former head lobbyist, Michael Bloomfield, in his article "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby" (Bloomfield, Michael (September 27, 2007). "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby". Whippany, New Jersey: New Jersey Jewish News.), provides an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda. On the relationship between U.S. Jewish organizations and AIPAC, he writes "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel."

That's a quote from an article by AIPAC's former head lobbyist, writing about the Jewish lobby. So that's a direct quote from a major player in Washington. One could argue over how much of the article should be included, of course. This was deleted by Armon (talk · contribs) as part of the same edit.

So that's what's being deleted as "original research". Nothing there could possibly violate the sections of WP:OR quoted above. As for "neutral point of view" issues, arguably Bloomfield, the AIPAC lobbyist, isn't neutral, but I don't think that's what Armon (talk · contribs) is unhappy about.

The real issue here is the mislabeling, as "original research", quotes which some editors would prefer be forgotten.

--John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your incorrect claims regarding "the neologism issue" have been dealt with, in the section above. Also, I had already created sections to discuss these specific insertions, here and here. It's quite frustrating that you would simply ignore those sections, and repeat yourself down here - it appears that you are not even bothering to read the comments posted here before reverting. Suffice it to say that, for example, Bloomfield never even uses the term "Jewish lobby". Please click on the handy links provided to respond in the appropriate sections above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu, Jayjg was already called on this when we first had this discussion (see The Economist section above). Catchpole (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In reality, you and User:Nagle were called on this, and you still haven't come up with a convincing reply, other than to revert in material that violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aka, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carol Moore 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Article full-protected for a day

I just went back to count the edits; if we count sides, there's at least 6RR in the last 24 hrs.

Though no individual appears to have committed a 4RR blockable breach, the combination of behavior on both sides constitutes an edit war. The article is now full protected for 24 hours from now to attempt to slow down and defuse the edit war and encourage discussion here on the article talk page.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably good to link to the rule too. WP:Three-revert_rule. Frankly I thought it was 3 reverts to the same specific entry NOT to the whole article! EEK! One gets an idea in one's head and only a good wake up call, like above, gets it out! thanks! Carol Moore 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

What exactly is the purpose of this article?

What I see is an opening statement that links the term Jewish Lobby with antisemitism then it follows with a number of people of questionable notability defining the term. This article should be merged with Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is "Jewish lobby" is not the same thing as "Israel lobby in the United States". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, given the refusal to allow all different use of the term to be mentioned on this page, it would make sense to see if it gets a more NPOV rendering on that page where there are more interested parties who would insist on NPOV. Otherwise, I would argue for the merits of keeping it as it's own article. However, I'm sure 50 people would pop up to support the POV definition here and oppose a merge, so practically probably not possible. But feel free to propose it! Carol Moore 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I don't see how listing a long list of where and how it's used are encyclopedic, personally. An encyclopedia entry is a summation of reliable information - analysis and reliably sourced commentary, science and so forth. It's not replacing Google as a search engine for pointers to every usage of the term on the Web. I still don't understand what Carol and John's reasoning is on why you think it's appropriate to include all those links. What are you trying to inform or communicate that you feel you need those links to demonstrate? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak for Carol or John. My concern with this article is that, to a layman, Jewish Lobby likely means groups such as AIPAC. Hence this article, in it's current condition, looks WP:FRINGE. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"What are you trying to inform or communicate that you feel you need those links to demonstrate?" That there is a Jewish lobby, and that even the Jewish lobby now calls it the Jewish lobby. Take a look at Deodar's comment from last August, above, "Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive". He says it quite well. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that you haven't produced any actual evidence that "even the Jewish lobby now calls it the Jewish lobby". As pointed out multiple times, a Bloomfield doesn't even use the term "Jewish lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. In Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s alternate universe, The Economist isn't a reliable source, a phrase that appeared in Time Magazine in 1978 is a neologism, The New Jersey Jewish News used an anti-Semitic phrase in a headline, and the editor of The Forward using the term "Jewish lobby" can be ignored. This may be a WP:FRINGE problem, as noted above. --John Nagle (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't strawman what Jay is saying. He said nothing of the sort. Instead, why don't you address, point by point, the specific problems with these insertions above, as pointed out by many different editors - and, in addition, find a cite for your opinions. So far you have conspicuously avoided actually addressing the objections raised, instead responding with vague and pejorative claims that often have nothing to do with the points made by those who oppose these policy-violating insertions. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

More Cites of Jewish Organizations, Lobbies and Publications Using “Jewish Lobby”

First, User:Georgewilliamherbert says above: While the mere existence and usage of the term, and what it means, are well documented, adding more instances of its usage doesn't add anything important or interesting to the article and isn't encyclopedic content per se. Seems to me this applies to the ever multiplying quote farm of those saying it ALWAYS means something antisemitic. Otherwise his general comments about our interpretations unclear but his specific answers to my questions (in the middle of "Quotes from the Economist") are more clear and I do not necessarily disagree with them, though I feel we'd have debate over the interpretation of them.

Meanwhile User:Armon asks John Nagle: find a cite for your opinions. So below are some quotes John might find of use for the approach he is using, which overlaps with mine, I think(?). They are not a presentation of quotes about the use of the term which I'll get around to finishing off with defenses for their use at some point; bills are due and all that and I don't get paid for doing wiki stuff. Note: Bold emphasis added below.

---

---

The Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago http://www.juf.org/news/local.aspx?id=15862 I'm a proud member of 'the Jewish lobby' By Eve Samborn

Nothing I advocated for recently in Washington, as part of my trip with JUF's Jewish Community Relations Council, was particularly controversial. World peace did not hinge on my ability to communicate effectively with members of Congress. I was told repeatedly that what I said did not tip the balance, lest I feel burdened by fear of failure. Then why was it so important that I go? The Jewish community is fortunate to enjoy widespread support throughout Capitol Hill. It seems that most of our agenda for the day will pass easily, and is especially popular with members of the Illinois Congressional delegation. Ignoring the concerns of the Jewish community is a political risk that few members of Congress, on either side of the aisle, feel is worth taking. This has not always been the case.... When I told him about the trip, a non-Jewish friend asked jokingly, "So you're part of the Jewish lobby now, huh?" "Yes," I replied slowly, "I guess I am." That is a statement I know I can be proud of.

---

---

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/02/liberal-now-means-anti-zionist.html Thursday, February 1, 2007 'Liberal' now means anti-Zionist

Mr. Judt, whose views on Israel and the American Jewish lobby have frequently drawn fire, is chastised for what Mr. Rosenfeld calls "a series of increasingly bitter articles" that have "called Israel everything from arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile to dysfunctional, immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-Semitism." (NOTE: no quotation to show that they are not using the phrase is straight forward descriptive way.)

---

---

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3091240,00.html Mr. Sharon goes to Washington, Opinion in Ynetnews, March 27 2005 Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer

No Jewish lobby has more political power than the 100,000-strong AIPAC organization. This power is one of Israel’s greatest global assets.

---

---

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177251151218&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Apr. 23, 2007 Coming together, falling apart SHIRA TEGER , THE JERUSALEM POST

The more that young Soviet Jews risked their lives and their freedom to challenge Soviet policy, the more young American Jews were emboldened to become more politically Jewish in their behavior. There was this reciprocal relationship of empowerment. What we know today as the Jewish lobby largely owes its empowerment to the Six Day War."

---

---

http://www.forward.com/articles/11986/ The Jewish Lobby Israel Needs Akiva Eldar | Wed. Nov 07, 2007 (Note: used only in the headline, in descriptive not pejorative manner)

---

---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/912695.html Last update - 22:24 11/12/2007 U.S. Jews are losing their bond to Israel By Haaretz Staff and Channel 10 October 14, 2007.

But despite the ever present strength of the Jewish lobby in the U.S., the average age of politically involved Jews is on the rise, and young American Jews are growing less and less interested.

---

---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/900481.html 4/09/07 Border Control / The optimist from East Jerusalem By Akiva Eldar

...The Christian Arab (Safieh is also the PLO representative to the Vatican) has had to repel the wave of Islamophobia sweeping over Americans following the September 11, 2001 attacks.Not only does he have to deal with the Jewish lobby, whose influence over the centers of power in the American capital it is hard to exaggerate, he must also maneuver between the PLO-in-the-territories and the PLO abroad, between the Fatah-West Bank government and the Hamas-Gaza government...

---

---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=395916&contrassID=13 An American Jewish lobby at the European Union By Amiram Barkat

"The establishment of the institute raises another, intra-Jewish problem. After all, this is the home arena of European Judaism. People like Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, believe that a Jewish lobby in Brussels should be run by European Jews, and not by American Jews."

---

---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789919.html The Gewalt agenda By Akiva Eldar

The prime minister hopes the Jewish lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians.

---

---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=841010& The attack on the Jewish lobby keeps coming and coming -

...You can read a summery of Soros' criticism - and that of others - in Nathan Guttman's Forward comprehensive piece: Major critiques of Jewish lobbying were published by controversial billionaire George Soros, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof, the respected British newsmagazine The Economist and the popular Web site Salon. The replies were furious. The New York Sun accused Kristof and Soros of spreading a "new blood libel." The American Jewish Committee's executive director, David Harris, wrote in a Jerusalem Post opinion article that Kristof had a "blind spot" and had "sanctimoniously lectured" Israel. The editor of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, renewed an attack on Soros that he began a month ago when he called the Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor a "cog in the Hitlerite wheel."....

---

---

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3712/1/The-Jewish-lobby:-Exposed The Jewish lobby: Exposed in New Jersey Jewish Standard By Phyllis Chesler | Published 01/11/2008 |

Last week, the Wiesenthal Center took a high-minded, utterly rational, and insanely expensive full-page ad in The New York Times and in the International Herald Tribune in which it denounced "Suicide Terror." The ad calls upon the "world to act" against the "plague" of such attacks that have "murdered thousands of innocents," and it displays the photo of the late Benazir Bhutto, whose claim to innocence has been widely disputed but whose assassination, in my opinion, was utterly tragic. The ad is bravely naïve. For example, it calls upon the U.N. General Assembly to hold a "special session to deal exclusively with the scourge of suicide terror."

(Note: She seems to be “exposing” that the Jewish Lobby (which she uses in title in descriptive not pejorative manner) is not acting effectively enough on this issue.) Carol Moore 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

---

---

Carol, to begin with, Chesler doesn't use the term at all; she refers to the "so-called Israel lobby". As has been pointed out before, it is anonymous editors who come up with newspaper headlines, not article authors. More importantly, you are again just googling for sources that use the term, not sources about the term. Let me quote 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).

Please abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's helpful in dealing with the "neologism" issue. Some of those references are specifically about the Jewish lobby, and some just use the term in passing but come from mainstream news sources. We're making progress. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way does this help with the "neologism" issue? Carol, I suggest you read up on the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and the way in which they can used on WP. Someone simply using the term is a primary source. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, John, in what way does this help with the "neologism issue"? It doesn't appear to address it at all. The fact that I can google up a bunch of references to the term "Jewish lobby" doesn't mean it's not a neologism. Rather than talking around the issue, can you please directly address the points made? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, rather than simply sitting back and making others prove their point, why don't you address some of the concerns people have had about this article and see if those concerns can be addressed? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But they haven't made any points that are actually addressable. They insist that the term "Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, even though it cannot be found in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or similar reference work. The continually google up uses of the term (preferably in conjunction with the word AIPAC), insisting that there is some other point of view that is missing, but can find no reliable sources discussing the term that make the point they want to make. At this point, what needs to be addressed? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back through the last 500 edits of Jewish Lobby, I don't see Armon (talk · contribs) adding much content. Almost all his edits are reverts or deletions. I can't find a single case where he added cited information. (Did I miss anything?) On the talk page, almost all of his edits are non-specific comments without citations. We need to get more constructive work out of this editor if we're to make progress. --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, what you're seeing is that I've edited. I've also done research; looking for secondary sources discussing the term as having a "non-bigoted sense". I don't understand your complaint. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I have to doubt that a 30 year old phrase is a neologism. Second, it is discouraging to add anything here when there are people whose history of edits is primarily reverts which I think look more like WP:Idontlikeit or WP:GAME than anything else. So for now I think I'll write an article about the phrase (without mentioning the Wikipedia article, of course) and get it out to thousands of people who write on the topic and see what they might be inspired to write about it all. Seems like the best use of my time. Though I'll monitor this page and see what other good quotes others come up with - and which ones they debunk. So you can list me as an editorial drop out on this topic for now. (Of course, self control is not my forte, so I'll probably throw in my two cents here from time to time.) Carol Moore 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

As has been pointed out before, prequel is described in its article as a "neologism", and it has been around for 50 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites of "Jewish lobby" as an anti-Semitic term need to be improved

Some of the cites used to support the lead sentence "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance." are questionable.

• "The Myth of the Jewish Lobby" begins with the line "The power and influence of major U.S. Jewish organizations owe a lot to the convergence of their views with the neo-conservative elements who dominate the ruling coalition in Washington.". His point is that the Jewish community in the US mostly votes Democratic, while AJC/AIPAC were (as of 2003) closely aligned with the neocon wing of the Republican Party. He's distinguishing between the interests of Jews (especially Indian expatriates in the US; this is from India's national magazine) and the AJC/AIPAC/neocon coalition.

• "Message to the left: there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby". David Aaronovitch definitely says that. But he's just writing that as a primary source; he doesn't provide any backup for the statement. It's a polemic, not reporting. This raises a reliable sources issue.

• "ZOG ate my brain", the cite to the New Internationalist, has no link and turns out to be mis-cited. (Fixed that.) It's actually "ZOG ate my brains"[30]. That story cites a use of the term "Jewish lobby" by anti-war protestors, with a footnote leading to a 1990 paper by the same author.[31]. That paper is an analysis of most of the conspiracy theories of the time: the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, the LaRouche people, the JFK conspiracy, etc. (You get a "where are they now" feeling reading the thing.) Haven't found "Jewish Lobby" in there yet, but I'm still looking. --John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Found it: "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry and labor. (1978)" [32] It's in the section on the LaRoucheites, right after "The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolph Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. (1978)" We're way out in WP:FRINGE territory here. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry John. I don't understand what your point is here. Could you clarify? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding this too. "The Myth of the Jewish lobby" says 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. The "Jew", without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", is a good illustration of this idea. That's pretty straightfoward. As for David Aaronovitch and The Guardian, what exactly was it that suddenly turned them into unreliable sources? As for the third, who are you saying has a fringe opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment

I don't intend to join this debate, but I've been following it with interest (and generally speaking, approval) and so will briefly comment.

I agree strongly with Jay and Armon on two important and related points: (1) Given the controversial nature of the phrase "Jewish lobby," the article should focus on the phrase itself, as opposed to say, competing claims about the activities and organizational influence of AIPAC and related groups. (2) In doing so, the article should carefully and rigorously distinguish between sources that merely use the phrase, and sources that discuss the phrase itself. Only the latter are appropriate.

As solid as these foundations are, it seems to me that at least two of the premises erected upon them are rickety. My caveats are as follows:

I. It's not clear to me that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism. I know of course that "neologism" can refer to phrases as well as words, but usually it's when some sort of novel semantic or metaphorical spin is being put on one of the words, no? For example, "political correctness" is a neologism, as is "creative destruction" and "blue state." But I can't think of any examples where a phrase joining an adjective and a noun in their ordinary dictionary sense to describe something is considered a neologism, even if there's lots of controversy about the nature of the thing being described. "Race politics" isn't a neologism, but "dog-whistle politics" is, right? Ditto with "Islamic fundamentalism" and "Islamofascism," no? "Global warming" might be an arguable borderline case. At any rate, I can't find any source anywhere that describes "Jewish lobby" as a neologism. Jay argues that "the term 'Jewish lobby' is not found in any encyclopedia or dictionary, and is therefore a neologism," but this isn't true. The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms, which has gone to several editions, defines "Jewish Lobby" as follows:

Jewish Lobby. A conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel. Among those organizations which are most actively involved in lobbying activities at federal, state, and local levels of political and governmental institutions are: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Community (AJC), which was once headed by Arthur Goldberg, the former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the B’nai B’rith which claims a membership of over half a million worldwide. The Jewish Lobby claims to speak for the six million Jews residing in the United States (with half of that number, or approximately three million, living in New York State and mid-Atlantic states – which exceeds the total number of Jews in the State of Israel), and it is known to be the most loyal and most generous donor to campaign expenses of public officials, regardless of nationality and religion. Political aspirants often find that Jewish constituencies are the first to embrace them and the last to abandon them, no matter how rough the going. See ARAB LOBBY, JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, SADIT-BEGIN SUMMIT.

II. It seems to me problematic to define the term as "referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas" in the opening sentence, in the neutral voice of Wikipedia, when our only sources are two op-eds and the findings of a not particularly prominent independent researcher. There are two problems with this. One is that there are other sources, of equal or greater reliability (the dictionary quoted above being one example) which define the term differently, and don't see it as pejorative. The second problem is that this is obviously false. While primary sources merely using the term are not appropriate for the article itself, we can certainly consider them in talk-page deliberations, and even a half-hour's cursory research reveals that the term has been used by a wide variety of sources, many of which quite obviously do not believe Jews exercise undue influence. According to Georgetown University's Washington Review of Strategic and International Studies, "the Jewish lobby is a loose coalition of Jewish groups led by its umbrella lobbying organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)." And here's Efraim Karsh:

The Israelis, however, understood that the American Jewish lobby, despite its vociferous activism, did not really have the means to jeopardize Japanese sales to the American market. But one should not underestimate Japanese businessmen's perception of the Jewish lobby's economic position in the US.

And here's Michael Ignatieff, who does not believe Jews have undue influence, writing in his renowned book about Isaiah Berlin – who, as the following quotes make clear, certainly did not believe Jews have undue influence:

[Berlin] was also sceptical about the real political influence of the Jewish lobby: he said American Catholics were better organised.(104)

At the time, he was convinced that Ben Gurion was wrong to seek to mobilise American Jewish opinion against British policy in Palestine; wrong because the Jewish lobby had little real influence; wrong because agitation would sow dissension between America and Britain.(108)

Berlin in fact became convinced that the Foreign Office was exaggerating the strength of the American Jewish lobby.(119)

There are a great many other citations of this kind. Again, let me be clear that I'm not suggesting such uses of the term go into the article itself; I'm saying they tell us something is seriously awry with our definition.

Finally, we say in the lead that according to George Michael, the term "is used most commonly by the far right, far left, and Islamists." As far as I can tell, he doesn't say this at all. In the pages cited, he talks about Arabs and others who theorize about "Jewish conspiracies." He writes, "Not unlike extreme right conspiracy theorists, some Islamists go so far as to claim that Jewish influence extends to the whole Western world." But as far as I can tell, he doesn't even mention the "Jewish lobby," much less discuss the phrase itself. Am I missing something?

Concluding suggestion.The term is controversial even among those who don't think it attributes undue influence to Jews. Walt and Mearsheimer famously avoid it because they want to stress that many members aren't Jewish, and many Jews don't support it. And Michael Geoffrey Bard write that "reference is often made to the "Jewish lobby" in an effort to describe Jewish influence, but the term is both vague and inadequate. American Jews are sometimes represented by lobbyists, but such direct efforts to influence policymakers are but a small part of the lobby's ability to influence policy." He argues that "Israeli lobby" (compare to W & M's 'Israel Lobby') "is a more accurate label than Jewish lobby, because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews. This term also reflects the lobby's objective. The Israeli lobby can then be defined as those formal and informal actors that directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel."

I think what is extremely clear from the primary sources is that "Jewish lobby" was at one time a more acceptable umbrella phrase for AIPAC, the AJC, and related groups, and that it has since become more controversial, and has largely been replaced by "Israel lobby." I don't know if there's a good secondary source tracing this. At any rate, based on the reliable secondary sources we do have, my suggestion for the lede is something along the following lines: Jewish Lobby is a phrase sometimes used to refer loosely to AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish-American lobbying organizations. Its validity as a term is disputed by a number of commentators and on several grounds. Some argue that it attributes undue influence to Jews and is fundamentally antisemitic. Others claim that it is an inaccurate label for a political coalition that doesn't represent most American Jews and includes many non-Jews, and whose primary concern is policy towards Israel.

Best of luck to all as you work this out.--G-Dett (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is forward progress. A few notes:

• That comment about Isaiah Berlin mentions David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, who died in 1973, and mentions British policy in Palestine, so it's about the 1930s or 1940s, probably before the founding of Israel. That comment needs to be dated to give it historical context. The Jewish Agency for Israel, in their history section, writes this about the ending of the British mandate: "Truman, who had assumed office as a result of Roosevelt's death, was seeking public support in both Congressional and Presidential elections -- and was therefore responsive to the Jewish lobby." [33] We could go more into the history if desired. Several sources indicate that the modern "Israel lobby" didn't really get going until the 1967 war, though, so we can probably concentrate on the modern period for this article. We already have Israel lobby in the United States for the modern period, and it discusses the "how much influence" issue at length, so a See Also would deal with most of those issues.
• I agree that we need to be more careful about not drawing factual conclusions from op-ed type commentators. This is the sort of issue where we can properly say "X said Y", but will have a hard time justifying saying "Y is a fact". Anyway, thanks for the comments. We needed some new voices in this discussion. --John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest Berlin's views of the Jewish lobby in the '30s were appropriate material for the article; I meant that Ignatieff's unblinking reference to the "Jewish lobby" and Berlin's views of same, in a context that clearly does not attribute undue influence to Jews, in a highly acclaimed and uncontroversial book from 1998, is but one indication (among many others) that the previous version's definition of the term was unsatisfactory. Your point that this article should focus more on the last 40 years sounds reasonable, but I'm not an expert on this article or its subject.

On another note, I notice the George Michael material is still there. I have the book in front of me, but maybe I'm missing something. It seems that he does not say what the article attributes to him.--G-Dett (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I think G-Dett made some excellent suggestions, so I have reworked this document to use his suggestions (including his superior introduction) and to better organize the presentation of material to follow a logical order. I have not deleted any sentences; I have only moved them to more appropriate sections (for example much of the old introduction belonged in the Antisemitism section so I moved it there). And I moved the Antisemitism section to follow the Usage section since Usage is a more explanatory section, leading us through the uses of the term and reinforcing the Introduction.

Other than G-Dett's introduction, I also added two cited quotes from the Jerusalem Post which show its usage in a non-pejorative way to refer to AIPAC et al. I also reordered some of the paragraphs in the Usage section so the writing would follow the order of the introduction. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't read it in detail, I'm delighted to see a nice balanced definition in first paragraph. I'll go through next week and see if I want to recommend any tweaks. Also, there has been an excellent resolution to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which people might want to check out for future reference.Carol Moore 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Much improved. Thanks very much. --John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This addition makes the article very antisemitic in form, completely dropping all the references to antisemitism, turning them into allegations and removing sourced content. The term is heavily antisemitic, alleging some jewish conspiracy, and claiming it is because of the actions of Israel, and is a legitimate view is excessively bias. Yahel Guhan 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, please AGF and do not make demonstrably FALSE accusations against other editors.

Yahel, NO references to antisemitism have been dropped, they have been moved into the Antisemitism section. I hope that as an editor you understand the logic of that? That claims of antisemitism belong in a section titled "Association with Antisemitism"??

Yahel, NO sourced content has been removed - that is simply FALSE. All sentences that were present before are still present. And all citations that were present before are still present.

Yahel, YOU may truly believe that "The term [Jewish lobby] is heavily antisemitic, alleging some Jewish conspiracy, and claiming it is because of the actions of Israel, and is a legitimate view is excessively bias." And this claim is exhaustively presented in the Antisemitism section. But that is clearly not the only point of view. This is made very clear in the text that you are deleting. Please do not delete it again with this inaccurate claim.

Yahal, not only are your claims false, but you have now TWICE done what you have accused me of - YOU have TWICE deleted properly sourced content and their citations to RS (Jerusalem Post). You have removed three sentences of cited text - twice. Please follow WP rules and do not delete properly sourced content again.

Yahel, I have readded the cited sentences that you have removed. If you have comments, please make them HERE in this Talk page, and be careful not to delete cited text simply because you disagree with it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, everybody. Yahel, if you have any specific criticisms backed up with citations, please put them here, on the talk page. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in to voice my support for the recent work by jgui and Gdett. The article is now far closer to the ideals suggested by WP:NPOV. Catchpole (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't use a personal POV to trump WP:NOR. Sorry. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, as has been stated before quite a few times, you cannot insert examples of uses of the term, but rather must provide sources which discuss the term. Cobbling together a few uses of the term to make a specific point (in this case that it is used non-pejoratively by Jewish sources) is, in fact, the very definition of original research. Even if you argue that it is not a neologism (and the fact that it is found in no standard dictionaries or encyclopedias strongly indicates that), this particular sentence from WP:NEO 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).

If editors were allowed to pick and choose among sources that simply used the term, then there would be no end to the original research in the article. For example, when one does a Google search for "Jewish lobby", the first and third hits are articles by Mark Weber, head of the Holocaust denial outfit the Institute for Historical Review. One could easily use this and thousands of other examples of use of the term to prove that it is generally used by antisemites, Holocaust deniers, etc. This basic point has been agreed to by many outside observers, including G-Dett herself. I will be removing any material that merely cites sources that use the term, rather than discussing it. Additional issues include:

• The article has now been narrowed to a peculiarly American-centric view of the term, despite the fact that the article actually discusses use of the term in relation to groups in the United Kingdom and France. I will be fixing that too.
• The re-write insert original research in multiple areas - for example, claiming that "More recently some writers have complained about the inaccuracy of the term." and using as an example a reference from 1991, pre-dating almost every other reference on the page. How can one of our earliest references be "more recently"?
• And finally, for what I'm sure are purely accidental reasons, the issue that most sources that discuss the term refer to, antisemitism, has been pushed to the bottom of the page. I'll remedy that too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored quote from speech about the "Jewish Lobby" from the editor of The Forward. --John Nagle (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's merely another example of a source that uses the term, not discusses it. We've been over this many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I strongly disagree with your attempt to use an inaccurate claim of WP:NOR to block the inclusion of worthwhile and relevant cited material from this page. I am quite certain that your analysis of WP rules is incorrect in this regard. But I will leave this aside for the moment, and leave out the sentences you threaten to remove no matter what, to discuss some of the other problems with your latest version of the document.

Jayjg, your first sentence is: "Jewish lobby is a term used to indicate Jewish exercise influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance." You apparently failed to notice that this sentence is treating one of the specific uses of the phrase as if it were the only use. I have therefore left the general portion in the first sentence, and moved the specific portion to where it belongs, to the discussion of undue influence later in this section.

Jayjg, your second sentence is: "In the United States the phrase is sometimes used to refer loosely to various pro-Israel lobbying groups.". This is inaccurate: the phrase is used world-wide to refer to pro-Israel lobbying groups (you should know, having yourself removed references from US, Israeli and European sources). I have therefore changed it to be correct.

Jayjg, I was attempting to better organize the Usage section to reflect the description given in the Introduction, a fact which you ignored when you deleted my changes. I hope that as an experienced editor you will agree that it is important for WP pages to present information in a logical, organized fashion. I have therefore changed the order again - this time creating subsections under Usage to make the organization clearer. Once once again I have deleted NOTHING - I have only moved it so that it follows the order in the introductory lede paragraphs.

Jayjg, as part of that I changed the sentence that you correctly noted was poorly written ("More recently some writers"). Thank you for that suggestion.

Jayjg, thanks to your relentless attempts to block inclusion of material based upon inaccurate claims of NOR, I have found a quote that explicitely discusses the use of the term "Jewish Lobby" in Israeli media, and further claims that the cry of "anti-semitism" is a tactic of that lobby. I have provided a citation to this RS (London Review of Books) - please do not delete this since it satisfies all of the prerequisites that you have laid down for its inclusion.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The version you changed (which was mostly the result of Jayjg's work) did allow that here is more than a single use of the term - but noted , correctly, that it is far more common to be used by antisemitic sources to allege undue control by Jews, than the loose and informal why in which it is occasionally used to describe pro-Israel lobbying. Your version made the secondary usage into the primary one, relegated the most common use to secondary status, and tucked away the major section discussion it at the bottom of the article. Please don't do it again. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay's lead begins "Jewish lobby is a term used to indicate Jewish exercise influence in a number of areas." What's Jewish exercise influence? I keep staring at that phrase and cogitating very hard but all I can call to mind is Sydney "Joe" Gold of Gold's Gym, and if I really squeeze my brain maybe Josef "Joe" Weider, he of the "Anabolic Mega-Pak" supplement so many of my pimple-faced suitors poured hopefully into their milkshakes an eon or two ago. I gather this isn't the idea, but then I'm not sure what is the idea. Can someone who gets the idea fix the syntax?--G-Dett (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "exercise" from the lead sentence. Now it's a sentence. I also requested a sockpuppet check on I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs), in line with the increased scrutiny ordered in the last ArbCom decision. --John Nagle (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The "last ArbCom" decision said nothing about "sockpuppet checks"; please don't distort what it actually said. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the word "exercise" again. Please, be more careful in these reverts; small errors that have been fixed without controversy are being re-inserted. --John Nagle (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Walt and Mearsheimer Quotes

Jgui, you don't need to address me at the beginning of every sentence. You have again included examples of the use of the term, not sources which discuss the term; and, in fact, your first insertion of Mearsheimer and Walt's use of the term is simply another example of the use of the term, and your second insertion of it is quite inaccurate; Mearsheimer and Walt claim that criticism of Israel or even reference to the Israel lobby will produce accusations of antisemitism - that has nothing to do with the term "Jewish lobby". I have again removed the WP:NOR violating material that provide examples of use of the term, and instead brought more sources that discuss the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, wow, are you seriously claiming that this text is only using the term: In the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt note that "the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’"[10]? Clearly they are not simply using the term, they are discussing its use by the Israeli media. Are you seriously going to claim that you fail to see that?? Really??? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that one small sentence in the article does tangentially discuss the term. I've added it to the article. The rest of the material you took from the article, however, did not discuss the term at all. Nor, for that matter, did the original research material you surrounded it with. Your insertion completely misrepresented what Mearsheimer and Walt were saying - they said, in fact, that there was an Israel lobby, and that one of the things the Israel lobby did was claim there was none, and accuse people who said there is an Israel lobby of antisemitism. They did not make that point regarding the term "Jewish lobby", nor did they in any way try to refute the claim that the term is antisemitic. You invented that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the Request for Enforcement (which I can't find right now since it was enforced) I quoted from the book version of Walt and Mearsheimer (which is only a bit difference from the original online paper version). Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer note on page 188 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: 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.

In text I replaced incomplete and POV 2006 quote from article with full quote from 2007 book to more accurately reflect their views; per Raymond's usage. If there seems to be some conflict with the quotes that follow, proper context for those should be found, though it is possible Walt/Mearsheimer themselves are inconsistent in their use of the term followed by their denial of using the term. Hmm, would it be original research to email and ask them??

By the way, is someone intending to write a wikipedia article about Raymond, given the links around his name when there is no article, or should we go through and put wiki links around every quoted person who doesn't have a wiki article yet? I'll be happy to do so. Carol Moore 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Regarding Raymond, if he's quote in the lead, he should probably be significant enough for his own article. Now, onto the main issue: Carol, did you notice that most of that quote you inserted had nothing whatsoever to do with the term Jewish lobby? In fact, most of it is Mearsheimer and Walt's view of the Israel lobby. Per WP:NOR, we must restrict the material we bring into an article to stuff that is actually about the topic. If you want to write about the Israel lobby in the United States, guess what - there is a whole article devoted to that topic - it's called Israel lobby in the United States. I am again removing material that is not about the topic of this article, and instead inserting material that is actually about the term Jewish lobby. This shouldn't be so hard, Carol; please find material that discusses the term Jewish lobby, rather than inserting irrelevant stuff about the Israel lobby. If I sound a bit frustrated, it is because I explained this already, in the very comment you were responding to above. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Raymond, his not having an article would not be an excuse for deleting his quote; if a better one by some one with a Wiki article was found, it would be an excuse for moving it down.

Re: You added "A conglomeration of approximately thirty-four" to the excerpt from the Raymond quote I chose to use, doubtless because you wanted fuller context. I believe you use the Walt/Mearsheimer quote out of context in a WP:SYNTHESIS way to prove your point that "Jewish lobby" is anti-semitic.

You take this that I quoted from the book version: 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.

And turn it into this inaccurate quote, still with the book as the reference:the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’

Neither the long sentence or the short phrase really "discusses" Jewish lobby, both use it; but if one "discusses" it so does the other.

Moreover, the longer one gives NPOV context to the rest of what they have to say in that paragraph. To be clear, W/M believe that it is unfair that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media" can use "Jewish Lobby" but others who do can be smeared. They themselves choose not to use it because they believe the "lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." In deleting most of the first sentence and making the false claim that that only tiny phrase is "about" the Jewish Lobby but the whole sentence is not is just POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SYNTHESIS and a violation of wiki policies.

I'll count my reverts and decide what to do about it. But again getting fed up with the WP:GAME and WP:Double Standard.Carol Moore 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, you have completely misinterpreted Mearsheimer and Walt. What they claim is that the Israel lobby denies its own existence, and says people who say it exists are antisemites. They also say, in passing, that even the Israel press says it exists, referring to is as "America's Jewish lobby". They don't make any argument about whether or not the term "Jewish lobby" itself is antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please take this to the mediation. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said there I'm unclear on the process: Didn't see anything in relevant pages about us needing to provide evidence so I assume mediators are just investigating the article themselves, especially the existing talk page. (So I won't create archives til they finish.) Is there anything else we are supposed to do? Per John's comments above? Thanks. Frankly, they should just read this talk page - and look at article history -- best way to see all the things that have gone on here for 2 yearsCarol Moore 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Indeed it is, I hope they read this page carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that use of "Jewish lobby is more antisemitic

Evidence that use of "Jewish lobby" is more antisemitc than not??? Obviously there are a variety of statistical tests that could be applied to see whether NEUTRAL - CRITICAL - or ANTISEMITIC uses are most frequent. (Recognizing that there will be debate over whether many critical uses are antisemitic.) What statistical test do you suggest? I can think of a couple. Carol Moore 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

These "statistical tests" you talk of are, of course, original research. Carol, please read that policy. Seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the issue that most of the references we have alleging that the term is antisemitic are op-ed type pieces that don't actually cite instances of it being antisemitic. There are such instances out of the Arab world; MEMRI collects them.

• "Gore declares that he has completely sold himself to Israel and the Jewish lobby in the hope that they will support him in his campaign to reach the White House." (Jalal Duweidar, editor of the Egyptian government paper Al-Akhbar, August 9, 2000, as translated by MEMRI) [34] But then, Gore had in fact spoken to AIPAC's national meeting[35], saying "I soon found that my instincts and my conscience and my sense of America's national security needs put me in alliance with all of you. ... I share your love for Israel, your energetic, enduring support of the U.S. -Israel partnership, and I salute you for coming here to Washington every year to advocate for one of the key cornerstones of America's national security -- a strong, secure, peaceful and prosperous state of Israel." Complaining about that is ordinary political discourse.
• On April 8, 2006, the centrist, secular daily Aksam reported: "[…] A Turkish Foreign Ministry official evaluated the tensions in Washington as the manifestation of the great anger felt by the White House towards the AKP. He said: 'It is clear that they [the Americans] are reacting to the [AKP] government.' On the other hand, [the AKP's] Disli said that the incident was a provocation by the Jewish lobby. […] Disli told Aksam: 'There is an attempt to create an atmosphere that relations with the U.S. are severed, that they are finished. The Jewish lobby is behind all this.'"[36] That was about the Armenian genocide resolution issue, which was a hot political issue at the time.
• "Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - MEMRI: Iranian TV Claims U.S. Jewish Lobby Behind Watergate Affair " [37]. Here, though, MEMRI used the term "Jewish Lobby", while the original article used the term "Zionist lobby". So that's really MEMRI using the terms interchangeably.

All of those are just uses of the term; they're not about the term, or even the Jewish lobby. They're more about political and diplomatic issues involving Israel, the US, and the Arab world. We need secondary sources that actually demonstrate this claim, rather than primary sources that merely state it. --John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

John, please review WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. These sources make the claim, we include them, regardless of your original research arguments that they are incorrect. And there's no shortage of examples of antisemitic uses of the term. As I've pointed out before, the first and third Google results for the term are articles by Mark Weber, head of the Holocaust denying Institute for Historical Review. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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."[38] 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".[39]
• 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: [40] - 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)

Adding "The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms" Definition

Which ever version ends up being the final one after dispute resolution, it should include a quote from this: Walter John Raymond, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=1dtn0olA8PcC&dq=%22dictionary+of+politics%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=mWdU49sDHj&sig=jf98Xub08rUSP5KKMrMnEwGN6Wc The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms], Richmond, VA: Brunswick Publishing Corporation, 1992, 243.

The whole quote (per the above) being:

Jewish Lobby. A conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel. Among those organizations which are most actively involved in lobbying activities at federal, state, and local levels of political and governmental institutions are: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Community (AJC), which was once headed by Arthur Goldberg, the former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the B’nai B’rith which claims a membership of over half a million worldwide. The Jewish Lobby claims to speak for the six million Jews residing in the United States (with half of that number, or approximately three million, living in New York State and mid-Atlantic states – which exceeds the total number of Jews in the State of Israel), and it is known to be the most loyal and most generous donor to campaign expenses of public officials, regardless of nationality and religion. Political aspirants often find that Jewish constituencies are the first to embrace them and the last to abandon them, no matter how rough the going. See ARAB LOBBY, JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, SADIT-BEGIN SUMMIT.

Carol Moore 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please Note New Arbitration Resolution on Israel/Palestine and Related issues

Since I can see recent changes which have long been discussed on this page already have led to heated writing. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which encourages civil and cooperative editing. It also creates a working group that intends to much more quickly and effectively deal with dispute resolution on problems that arise in editing articles related to these topics. Thanks. Carol Moore 05:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC {talk}

Carol, I have moved this section up here since we are in the midst of a discussion below and I wanted to stay focused on that discussion. Please feel free to move it back once we have completed our discussion. If you take issue with my moving this here temporarily, I apologize, and in that case PLEASE feel free to move it back immediately or let me know and I will do it for you. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice it was moved, or from where, but it seems like a good time to move it now. Meanwhile I think it is time we finally get some WP:dispute resolution going here.

The question is WHICH shall we start with under Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Step_6:_Turn_to_others_for_help? It seems like this is already too much of sticky wicket with so many editors involved (and too many partisans running about) for: Editor assistance, Request a comment, Ask for a third opinion, Ask at a subject-specific WikiProject, Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard.

Perhaps it is time for Informal mediation which reads: If things are getting a bit tricky, it might be useful to ask some cool heads to look in and help out. Sometimes editors who provide third opinions or respond to requests for comments may be willing to help mediate a dispute, if it is requested. The WP:Mediation Cabal can also assist in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation. And of course they will have to carefully read and think about what is written in the Resolution on Israel/Palestine and Related issues page linked above.Carol Moore 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree that it's time to crank up one of the dispute resolution methods. I don't have any strong preference as to which one is used. --John Nagle (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement has been requested. --John Nagle (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving This Talk Page

This page gets harder to read. I suggest we start by archiving everything before January 2008 when recent round began. Then by end of month we'll probably be ready for a January archive. I'll do it unless someone experienced wants to do it. This is the nly notice. Carol Moore 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Removal of Jews and Australian Politics reference

John, in your latest edit, on top of re-inserting original research sources that use the term, rather than discuss it, you also removed a reference from Geoffrey Brahm Levey & Philip Mendes. Jews and Australian Politics, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, who discuss the term.[41] Can you explain why? Do you object to this source in some way? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the insertion between Visontay and Vidal, because paragraphs had been moved around so much. Sorry. --John Nagle (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One-revert rule

This article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Consequently I will unprotect the article. Thatcher 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby is Up

Questions, cc: Jewish Lobby Talk Page This is my first mediation, read the relevant pages about but didn’t see clear answers.

• I of course will list several other issues if join on to it and assume those will have equal weight.
• Lobojo who has edited just twice and never been on talk is included. Five or six people who have made significant contributions, including on talk are not. I will announce on the Jewish Lobby Talk page.
• I assume the mediation committee will read and be working with the context of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
• I assume any mediation would not necessarily over-ride the Arbitration Committee one revert and the talk page rule? or would that depend on what we all agreed to?
• Are the sock puppet issue and Jayjg canvassing email relevant here? or only if we list them as relevant?

Carol Moore 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

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 [42]. 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 3M. 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 [43] for these books, if they still have them. This [44] 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}} 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)

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 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 [45] and this article from Haaretz.[46]. 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)

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[47]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 [48], 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:[49] 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)

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}

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."[50]. 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}