Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/Walt and Mearsheimer Quotes

Walt and Mearsheimer Quotes on "Jewish Lobby"

What is important to note here is that NOT allowing all (or excerpts from) the first and second quotes about antisemitism allows the impression they think use of word is defacto antisemitic. (Which reinforces Hirsh and Cesarani's "pot shots" and helps violate WP:BLP.) Quotes in chrono order. We need an agreement that some variation on them will stay and not be deleted.

• "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. 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’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."REF:John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: Authors, "The Israel Lobby", London Review of Books, March 23, 2006. Accessed January 21, 2008.
• "In fact, anyone who says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’".REF:Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Farrah, Strauss and Giroux, 2007, p. 188.
• Authors say they "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."REF:Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", Washington Post, Book World Live, October 9, 2007. Accessed January 7, 2008.
• they state "Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen.REF: "The Israel lobby", letters to the editor, October 14, 2007.

Carol Moore 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yup, Carol, it does seem that this might be a very good example of an RS that is sent to oblivian because of an 'I, or J, or K don't like it' perspective. It seems somehow quite unencyclopedic, somehow, 'if I shout louder I might win'. It seems somewhat lawyer-like; if you can't argue the truth, argue the law; if you can't argue the law, just argue. Not being a lawyer (nor personally ever finding one I could trust), it seems so, well, dershowitzy, so to speak. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, CO48. As has been explained many times, the relevant parts of the quotes are indeed used; however, the material about the Israel lobby, as opposed to the Jewish lobby, has not been used. And sniping, rather than actual argumentation, is decidedly unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Carol, to begin with the third and fourth quotes, and part of the first and second, are in the article already, and have always been. No-one has disputed their relevance, so I'm not sure why you bring them up. As for the problematic material, as has been explained a good dozen times, it is about the Israel lobby, not the Jewish lobby. We already have two articles about the Israel lobby, and further articles about M&W's article and book. That, if anywhere, is where the quotes belong. Looking at the quotes in turn, the first one says

"No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. 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’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

As is obvious, W&M are discussing the Israel lobby here, not the Jewish lobby. How do we know? Well, aside from the fact that the entire article is about the Israeli lobby, they themselves never describe it as a Jewish lobby, as they have stated explicitly, because they think the term "inaccurate and misleading". The only part of the quotation that is actually about the term "Jewish lobby" is the sentence fragment "even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’". The second quotation is more of the same:

"In fact, anyone who says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’"

Again, the first part of the sentence is about the Israel lobby, not the Jewish lobby, for the reasons given above. The part of the sentence relevant to the Jewish lobby article is "even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’" - and, lo and behold, that very quote is in the article, exactly where I put it! Go figure! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is seriously misinterpreting the first M&W quote, and misrepresenting the history of these quotes. He claims "that very quote is in the article exactly where I put it", but in fact he deleted that abbreviated quote multiple times before he was finally forced to include it.

Jayjg's interpretation of the full quote is plainly incorrect. Here is the quote:

• "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. 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’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

and here is an accurate interpretation of the quote:

• "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby".

Since Jayjg has belatedly accepted the truncated quote, his only argument against the full quote is that it is somehow not about the "Jewish lobby". But in fact it clearly is about the Jewish lobby. His apparent belief that only sentences that include the term "Jewish lobby" can be included in the Jewish lobby article is ludicrous. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your argument is absolute nonsense, and your "accurate interpretation of the quote" is, in fact, inaccurate original research. When W&M say "anyone who says there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism", they are quite obviously talking about the Israel lobby - that's why they use the term Israel lobby. W&M don't agree with the term "Jewish lobby", which they think is inaccurate, so they certainly wouldn't discussing the "Jewish lobby" when they specifically say Israel lobby. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm afraid it is not my argument, but rather your understanding of the English language that needs some improvement. The quote above that you are trying to block is a single and complete paragraph from M&W's paper in the London Review of Books. As such, it stands alone as a complete thought. Your assertion that the first sentence is talking about something completely different than the second sentence which is talking about something completely different than the third sentence is frankly absurd. What M&W are doing in this full paragraph is discussing the lobby that is given different names by different people - and they are clear that it is the same lobby and they are clear about the tactics of that lobby.

Jayjg, the original research that is occurring is in the twists and turns your attempt at an argument takes, producing at the end not an argument but a pretzel of absurdity. This M&W paragraph is not a partial quote, and it is not stitched together: as such it is not possible for it to be original research as you falsely claim.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, it's quite clear that M&W say that the Israel lobby uses that tactic. They don't agree that there is such a thing as a "Jewish lobby", or at least not one that can be identified with the Israel lobby - they've said so explicitly. You cannot take something they say about the Israel lobby and then apply it to the "Jewish lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, no that is not clear. It IS clear that M&W say that the lobby (which some call the Jewish lobby and they call the Israel lobby) uses that tactic. Jgui (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, jgui, it's exactly that clear; M&W make that statement in an article titled The Israel lobby (not "The Jewish lobby"), in which they say

"The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel."

They go on to say:

"The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters."

They specifically state they are talking about the Israel lobby, and further make it clear exactly why it is not a "Jewish lobby". To claim that they are talking about "the Jewish lobby", a term which they eschew, and specifically state is inappropriate, is a terrible abuse of them as a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Jayjg, well now you are doing exactly what you have accused other editors of doing - you are taking quotes from other papers or conversations that do not use the term Jewish lobby and you are using WP:OR to try to deconstruct a paragraph in a paper M&W have written that stands alone in an attempt to dilute and obscure the full meaning of that paragraph.

Jayjg, it is rather amusing that you are accusing me of "taking something they say about [one term] and applying it to [another]" when in fact I am not the one doing the argument stitching across multiple papers and conversations - YOU ARE. I am simply trying to include a full paragraph from an article that M&W wrote about the lobby.

Jayjg, WP:NOR policy states quite clearly that "references should be cited in context". Why are you opposed to the application of this policy - why are you trying to insist that the context of this quote must be stripped? Jgui (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I have no idea what you're talking about. All three quotations come from the same M&W paper, titled The Israel lobby. If you don't believe me, read it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, since you didn't provide a reference for me to check, I assumed these were from a different paper. Sorry, I guess I should have hunted them down on my own. But it doesn't change the fact that you are attempting to construct an argument from scattered quotes (that talk about Jews but not Jewish lobby) in an attempt to block the inclusion of a full paragraph - you are trying to argue that the context of a quote must be removed before it can be included in WP, which is a truly extraordinary argument to make. But I have a compromise solution that will get us past this argument: namely to include all of these quotes in the JL article: the paragraph that I am arguing for, plus the two that you think are necessary to understand their description of the term Jewish lobby. OK? Jgui (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was quite clear it was all from the same article, and M&W state quite explicitly what they mean when they use the phrase "The Lobby" in the article they titled The Israel Lobby. It turns out they're talking about the Israel lobby - you know, the one that doesn't represent many Jews, and includes many non-Jews. As for including more and more quotes from M&W about the Israel lobby, that makes no sense whatsoever. You can put the Israel lobby material in the Israel lobby article. Instead, let's quote what they say about the "Jewish lobby". And hey! That's exactly what the article does right now. Problem solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, very impressive use of repetition and the bold font, but although you repeatedly bold "Israel lobby", unfortunately this paragraph that you are preventing me from adding is, as you yourself admitted, "discussing the term" Jewish lobby.

Jayjg, So are you going to continue to ignore the question I've asked you several times: WP:NOR policy states quite clearly that "references should be cited in context". Why are you opposed to the application of this policy - why are you trying to insist that the context of this quote must be stripped? Jgui (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Summaries of M&W Paragraph

(added to separate from above ongoing discussion)

The issue is this summary:

• "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby".

of this sentence:

• "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. 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’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

Carol Moore 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

But your "summary" is, of course incorrect original research. M&W are saying that they don't use the term "Jewish lobby", even though various other groups (like the Israeli media) do. And please avoid making false, uncivil and snide comments in the future, thanks.[1]Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you are wrong because W&M say absolutely nothing about whether they themselves use the phrase "Jewish Lobby" only that the phrase is used by the Israeli media to refer to what "anyone" calls the "Israel Lobby." Please re-read it.

Actually that was some one else's summary. Let me see if I can come up with an even better one:

Anyone who criticizes the Israel Lobby - what Israel media call the Jewish Lobby - runs the risk of being called an antisemite.

The other issue is where does this sentence go? And I think it goes in the NEW section called something like "Synonyms for Jewish Lobby" (which I just added to the STATUS OF ISSES UNDER MEDIATION CHART). Carol Moore 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Regarding M&W saying absolutely nothing about whether they themselves use the phrase "Jewish Lobby", I quote from them: Gelb refers repeatedly to a “Jewish lobby,” despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading.[2] Regarding your summary, it is, again, inaccurate original research. What they actually says is "The Israel lobby doesn't even admit it exists, and claims those who say it does are antisemites". Regarding where the sentence goes, as I've explained before, since it's about the Israel lobby, which is what M&W are actually talking about, perhaps it goes in an Israel lobby article. Of course we're not going to have any original research about "synonyms for the Jewish lobby", unless you have a reliable source that explicitly states "X is a synonym for 'The Jewish lobby'". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

History of M&W Paragraph 1

(added to separate from above ongoing discussion)

Jgui - since you were not here earlier, I'm going to give you another chance -- if there are any more personal attacks made like the one above, the statement will be removed. We are not here to discuss other editors, only to discuss the content. Shell ^babelfish 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, Sorry, I've struck my comment, which was rather tame for typical WP Talk pages, but apparently too strong for Mediation pages (this is my first Mediation). Thanks for the note, Jgui (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the M&W quote (which I've put in italics to highlight), I think Jgui makes a good point in summarizing the paragraph. Jayjg argues that W&M reject the term which they used in early 2006 but

• a) they did so only in 2007, after being accused of using it as a slur repeatedly later in 2006 (and at least one of those accusations will be one of my new entries soon when get a chance) and
• b) just like Jayjg said I can't assume M&W wouldn't agree with Cesarani, he cannot assume that M&W would not be willing to say they think it is fine if others use the phrase as a synonym for Israel lobby or any other purpose; nor can he claim M&W think the phrase is antisemitic. Would not all three be WP:OR as Jayjg claims my challenge to Cesarani was?

Note this isn't an attack on Jayjg, just helping identify who is making arguments I disagree with. Carol Moore 01:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The "summaries" of M&W's paragraph that I have seen in the past contained assumptions about what M&W were saying that were, frankly, incorrect, so they're problematic. Regarding the rest of your argument, I see no evidence for your 2006/2007 timeline - as far as I know they've always exclusively used the term "Israel lobby". Finally, I don't include any arguments about M&W in the article; I merely quote the things they actually say about the phrase Jewish lobby, leaving things they say about the Israel lobby for articles that are actually about the Israel lobby. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Carol, can you provide any proof for statement a? And about statement b, are there statements in the article that you feel make those assumptions or are you just talking about comments made in the discussion here? Shell ^babelfish 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from just one article that is an example of the kinds of attacks Walt and Mearsheimer endured. (She only uses phrase Israel Lobby in book title!) - but I'm still working on this so I am making no claim of which of these particular excerpts are perfectly wiki acceptable at this point. Work in progress.

• http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/fields042106.asp Suzanne Fields, Recycling anti-Semitism

When things go bad, blame the Jews.... The professors, with respected scholarly credentials, accuse a shadowy Jewish lobby of manipulating U.S. policy in the Middle East to favor Israel even as it runs against the moral and strategic interests of the United States...They concede that "the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.'" They describe something more like Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" against Bubbarosity in the White House. The Jewish conspiracy, as the professors see it, is connected by spectacularly unlikely links: the editorial pages of the Washington Times and The New York Times, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard; think tanks as different as the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative American Enterprise Institute; members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations; and Democrats and Republicans left and right in Congress....The history of blaming the Jews is a long one....The essay that set off the latest contretemps over "the Jewish lobby" was published in London, where it received a more receptive audience than here....Debate, robust debate, over foreign policy is not only fair, but necessary. Criticizing Israeli policy, as many Jews do, is legitimate, just as criticizing U.S. policy is legitimate. But the professors, who cite criticism of their work as proof of the existence of "the Jewish lobby," should have known that it would encourage the recycling of old canards and invite authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows. Carol Moore 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, where is there any evidence that M&W rejected the term "Jewish lobby" only in 2007? From what I can see, they've never used the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence they rejected the term before 2007, on any grounds at all? The fact that they only used it to describe how Israelis used it doesn't mean they rejected other potential uses for themselves before that. And once they stated how THEY choose to use it, they did not explicitly or implicitly put down those who may use it differently. You evidently assume they did, as you do by put putting in Cesarani quote; seems like that old buggaboo original research, in thought if not in Cesarani quote deed. Carol Moore 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Where does the article state they "rejected the term before 2007"? I'm not making any assumptions, I'm quoting what reliable sources say. It's not "original research" to quote Cesarani. You're the one trying to make arguments based on your assumptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Version of W&M Section

This deals with my concern that W&M's quotes about their personal non-use of phrase "Jewish Lobby" was not given proper context - including in the NY Times letter which specifically responded to inaccurate accusations that they were writing about "The Jewish Lobby". My offering this does not mean I reject also using the quote where they talk at length about false accusations of antisemitism. Carol Moore 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

---

Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer write in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." However, Walt and Mearsheimer have been accused of actually writing about the “Jewish Lobby” and even of citing “criticism of their work as proof of the existence of ‘the Jewish lobby.’" They have stated that they "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." In a letter to the editor of The New York Times responding to a book review by Leslie Gelb, they state; “Gelb refers repeatedly to a ‘Jewish lobby,’ despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."

---

On top of being difficult to comprehend, your version contains original research, specifically your synthesis of sources 4,5, and 6 to advance a position based on use of materials as primary sources. And feel free to discuss their material about the Israel lobby and accusations of antisemitism in an article about the Israel lobby. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I was just following your format which currently is:

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, write that while "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’",[22] they themselves "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."

Your "while" equals my "however" (or "actually" or "even") and my summary is no more WP:OR than yours in that sentence-plus I include actual quotes in footnotes. I see no original research here, just a double standard application of policy.

But since you assumedly also don't like my adding the same kind of possibly interpretative words you add, I can simply take them out and then it just reads as a straight summary of the facts. (I assume you don't mind me adding the sentence about Gelb which gives context to their letter.)

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer write in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’."[3] However, Walt and Mearsheimer have been accused of actually writing about the “Jewish Lobby”[4][5] and even of citing “criticism of their work as proof of the existence of ‘the Jewish lobby.’"[6] They have stated that they "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."[7] In a letter to the editor of The New York Times responding to a book review by Leslie Gelb[8], they state; “Gelb refers repeatedly to a ‘Jewish lobby,’ despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."[9] Carol Moore 13:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Alternatively I could replace my summaries with the actual comments so the material replacing current sentence would read:

Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times of London claimed their initial report{REF} "accuses the Jewish lobby in America of subverting US foreign policy in Israel’s interest."{REF} Eric Frey of The Forward criticized "Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument that a mostly Jewish lobby is behind American support for Israel."{REF} Suzanne Fields wrote “[T]he professors, who cite criticism of their work as proof of the existence of 'the Jewish lobby,' should have known that it would encourage the recycling of old canards and invite authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows.”{REF}

This info about how others described their use of the term is about as relevant to the article as W&M's comments describing how they use the term. Either both are relevant or both are WP:OR. Again, let's not have double standards. Carol Moore 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, this isn't an article about M&W's paper - there's a whole different article about that, it's called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The article we are discussing here is about the term Jewish lobby, and it's not really about constructing arguments regarding the response to M&W's paper, but rather, the use and meaning of the term "Jewish lobby". Do any of those sources discuss the term "Jewish lobby", or do they just use it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is about use and meaning of Jewish lobby - and Should mention how its meaning and use by W&M were manipulated by those who wanted to make false accusations of antisemitism. Of course, you ALSO want to delete their paragraph about how 'Jewish Lobby' phrase is being used to falsely accuse people of antisemtism.

Existing quote on their meaning:

• they themselves "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."

Suggested quotes about interpretations of their meaning:

• "accuses the Jewish lobby in America of subverting US foreign policy in Israel’s interest."
• Eric Frey of The Forward criticized "Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument that a mostly Jewish lobby is behind American support for Israel."
• Suzanne Fields wrote “[T]he professors, who cite criticism of their work as proof of the existence of 'the Jewish lobby,' should have known that it would encourage the recycling of old canards and invite authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows.”

However, not to belabor the issue, what really matters is that their criticism of Gelb stays in. Maybe a footnote on those three quotes showing that Gelb's false statments were just a continuing of a bad habit. “Gelb refers repeatedly to a ‘Jewish lobby,’ despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Carol Moore 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Shame on me for just noticing that the Washington Post quote also was an answer to a relevant query. So that just including fuller original quotes might satisfy my concerns that we make it clear W&M were responding to accusatory material. New version would read (with additions in bold):

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer write in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’."[3] In a live discussion with Washington Post writers and reviewers, Stephen Walt responded to a question about their "criticisms of the 'Big Bad Jewish Lobby'" by saying "we never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."REF In a letter to the editor of The New York Times responding to a book review by Leslie GelbREF, they state: “Gelb refers repeatedly to a ‘Jewish lobby,’ despite the fact that we never employ the term in our book. Indeed, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading, both because the lobby includes non-Jews like the Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."REF

Looks like I didn't have to search for snide accusations, they were hidden in articles quoted already in the article. So they hardly can be called "original research" only "fuller context."Carol Moore 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] {talk}

What point are you trying to make, exactly? What do you think needs to be added to the paragraph on M&W? And there's no need to continually use the term "snide" just because I admonished you for making snide comments. You might want to cross out this snide comment while you're at it. Just because Wikipedia has a page on something, that doesn't give you license to falsely accuse others of it, particularly when you are in a mediation with them. On the contrary, it displays a contempt for this process. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your last response is TO my suggestion of how the text should read. You ask: "What do you think needs to be added to the paragraph on M&W?" What 'I put in bold in the paragraph you just read!
• Whether the comments/questions leading to M&W's comments were snide, insulting, etc. is a judgment call.
• And in that link you provided I actually was hoping the mediator might opine on when it is appropriate to bring up WP:Gaming the system, but perhaps that is a discussion better left for improving that article.
• I certainly think your suddenly appearing on obscure pages I edit and reverting me with questionable excuses could possibly be wiki harassment and even stalking. Carol Moore 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc [[User talk:Carolmooredc|{talk}

Stop talking about me, and start talking about the article content - then you won't have issues with making snide comments. This page is for discussing article content, nothing else. I don't think I can be any more clear. Regarding the additions, aside from over-wordiness (e.g. we don't really care that the comments were made "in a live discussion with Washington Post writers and reviewers") what does the additional material tell us about the term "Jewish lobby" itself? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are we talking about the second paragraph of the Criticism section? Shell ^babelfish 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

W&M Quote Issue 2 (Carol)

Gelb Issue Discussion Topic:Jayjg has allowed this to stand in full context. If he says he will not try to delete it later (unless obviously something more relevant comes up and article starts getting too long) I'm content. (It would have been helpful for it to have it's own section for archiving purposes? Break up now and archive after discussion finished? Carol Moore 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I don't know what you're talking about here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the second sentence of the second paragraph under criticism. You have not removed the Gelb context, as you did in the past (which is why this became a mediation issue in the first place). After the article was unlocked you put back the Gelb context, so I want to know if you now accept the full Gelb context or will delete it again in the future.

My original time stamp from last week got separated here, but I await Jayjg's response. Carol Moore 02:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What are you asking? I already inserted the material, as yet another compromise! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I too am fine with this compromise. Jgui (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted confirmation Jayjg is fine with the compromise that he put in there after I brought it up as a mediation topic. Thanks. Carol Moore 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

W&M Quote Issue 3 (Carol)

Washington Post Quotes Discussion Topic: Jayjg put in a short quote without context. I added the context in bold. He then totally removed the whole quote. I think it helps to use this example as well as the Gelb one and wonder what are his objections to the example in full context like below.

In a live discussion with Washington Post writers and reviewers, Stephen Walt responded to a question about their "criticisms of the 'Big Bad Jewish Lobby'" by saying "we never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."REF:Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", Washington Post, Book World Live, October 9, 2007. Accessed January 7, 2008. Carol Moore 15:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Are you saying the material in bold is particularly interesting or relevant? Why is it important, for example, to note that they made the statement "in a live discussion with Washington Post writers and reviewers"? Why do we have to note that they were responding to a question? What relevant information does this add to our knowledge of the subject "Jewish lobby", which is the subject of the article in question? Currently the article states:

Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, write that while "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’", they themselves "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."

What exactly do you think it adds to our understanding of the topic "Jewish lobby" if we know they made that statement in a live discussion with Washington Post writers and reviewers? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to know the context of the phrase, that it was a response to a question inferring they use the phrase, not a point they initiate. (Just like their comment later is a response to Gelb's false claim they used the term.) I am willing to compromise and shorten it to Stephen Walt responded to a question about their "criticisms of the 'Big Bad Jewish Lobby'" by saying "we never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." Carol Moore 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Kind of an editorial point here, but I think I may understand some of the opposition to using what you have written. Saying the 'Big Bad Jewish Lobby' is very pejorative and its not at all clear who made such a comment or why in that statement. The next question has to be, is using such a phrase at all helpful to understanding context? My personal opinion is that is does not help the context and is being used to flavor the statements with a certain POV. So given that, it might be helpful to reword the sentence so the context actually shows that they were answering a question put to them but avoid using the shock phrase which completely derails the point of the sentence. Shell ^babelfish 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually your comment makes the case for explaining the whole context, since obviously a reader initiated question would be more likely to use such loaded words. However, to deal with your concern, another compromise I would offer is: Stephen Walt responded to a question about their "criticisms" of the "Jewish Lobby" by saying "we never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity. Carol Moore 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Let me redo that in light of Jgui putting in his quote as one for discussion. I agree with him that that sentence could be used somewhere, though he didn't identify where and I can't remember what was best place. However, if for whatever reason that does not happen, I don't have a problem with a variation on what is currently there, as long as the chronological and motivational context is made clear, per the below.

Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 best selling book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, write that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." However, in response to later questioning, Steven Walt stated they themselves "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity." Carol Moore 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Personally, that seems much more clear - what does everyone else think? Shell ^babelfish 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I too am fine with this compromise. Jgui (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There were several questions about how to use quotes from W&M, where they should be used and which quotes should be included (see above for two specific questions). Could everyone summarize their feelings on the subject and we'll see if we can't find some common ground here. Shell ^babelfish 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gelb and the Washington Post issues appeared to have agreement from everyone and have been archived. If there was any further discussion needed on either, please feel free to move them back. Shell ^babelfish 06:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

W&M Quote Issue 1 (Jgui)

Shell, I think there were two outstanding issues pertaining to the M&W quotes, but it looks like only one of them is still under dispute. We had already all agreed that M&W quotes were relevant and worthwhile contribution to the article (Jayjg's version of the article includes some of them).

The remaining unresolved issue is archived HERE, in the section not including the subsections. It was a disagreement I was involved in with Jayjg about whether the following paragraph from a paper published in the London Review of Books should be included:

• "No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. 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’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

I argued that it should be included, but Jayjg argued that including the complete paragraph would be "Original Research", and that only a fragment of a sentence from that paragraph could therefore be included and that it should be combined with a sentence fragment from an interview that M&W gave (as in the current version of the article):

• Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, write that while "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’",[26] they themselves "never use the term 'Jewish lobby' because the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by religion or ethnicity."[27]

The other issue you archived HERE. It was a disagreement Carol was involved in with Jayjg about whether the same M&W paragraph from the article should have some context explaining M&W's quotes. Based on the current version of the article, it looks like this issue is mostly resolved by including portions of the suggested changes (although it is still on your "Topics to be discussed" list): Jayjg and Carol would have to comment on whether that is the case.

So I would propose that we continue the previous discussion about the unresolved issue paragraph from the London Review of Books, since it involves application of WP policies that are worthy of discussion. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As explained many times, Mearsheimer and Walt are making claims about the Israel lobby, which they are extremely adamant is not a Jewish lobby. Nevertheless you are trying to use their claims about the Israel lobby to counter claims that the term Jewish lobby is antisemitic. It both completely subverts M&W's argument, and so used is itself original research, an attempt to use parts of a statement not relevant to the topic Jewish lobby to counter an argument about the term Jewish lobby. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have indeed said it many times, but you have so far completely failed to explain how including a full paragraph quote from a single document is (in your words) "original research", but extracting one half of one sentence from that paragraph and combining it with a quote from a different document given at a different time is (in your opinion) the only way that this quote can be used in an article. Yes, I'm still waiting ... Jgui (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have explained quite clearly that most of the quote is about the Israel lobby, and that its inclusion was only intended to counter the argument that the phrase Jewish lobby was antisemitic. That's what makes it original research. I hope I won't have to continually repeat this. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, again you have "explained" something that it is not the case by using Original Research to construct your argument. This quote is about "The lobby", which they explicitely state is called by some the "Jewish lobby" - it is the same lobby, and it is the topic of this article. Jgui (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was suggested before that because the topic of M&W work isn't actually the Jewish Lobby, extensive quotes and information about their work really doesn't belong in this particular article. Jgui, can you give us some thoughts on why you believe their work and comments on their work belong in Jewish Lobby? Shell ^babelfish 02:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, if you read the quote it is abundantly clear that the topic of the quote is the Jewish lobby. Jayjg admitted as much in the Jewish lobby Talk pages. Therefore if the half-sentence quote belongs in this article (and all editors agree that it does), then the full quote with context also belongs in the article. Is there some WP policy that states that the context of a relevant quote must be REMOVED? On the contrary, I think WP policy is clear that the context should be INCLUDED. Shell, do you disagree? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What is "abundantly clear" is that the topic of the quote is the Israel lobby, and M&W parenthetically refer to the term Jewish lobby, noting that it is inaccurate, and that they don't use it. M&W cannot be talking about the Jewish lobby because they don't believe such a thing exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, where in this quote do they say any of the things that you claim they are saying? Nowhere - because of course you are applying Original Research by cherry picking from multiple sources to draw your own conclusions about what M&W are "really" saying. Please stop using OR to try to impose your interpretation of what M&W are saying, and let them say it in their own words by including the full paragraph, OK? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained before, M&W write about the "Israel lobby" - that is the topic of their famous paper and book. They don't write about the "Jewish lobby", because, as they themselves say, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading. And, in fact, we have whole articles on the subject about which M&W write: Israel lobby in the United States, and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, the article about their book. If you want to add material about M&W's views of the "Israel lobby", about which they actually write, please feel free to add it to the relevant articles, Israel lobby in the United States and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, the paragraph you are attempting to block discusses the "Jewish lobby" - even you admitted that in the Jewish lobby Talk pages. This quote is about "The lobby", which they explicitely state is called by some the "Jewish lobby" - it is the same lobby, and it is the topic of this WP article. You are applying Original Research by misrepresenting the meaning of statements they made at an interview to draw your own conclusions about what M&W are "really" saying in their writing, and that is Synthesis which is not permitted by WP policy. Not only is your use of Original Research here against WP policy, but so is your assertion that the context of a relevant quote must be removed. On the contrary, WP policy is clear that the context should be included. Please read the relevant WP policies and stop blocking this paragraph based on a faulty interpretation of those policies. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, jgui, it discusses the "Israel lobby", and makes a parenthetical comment about the term "Jewish lobby", which is all that is relevant for this article. As explained, M&W write about the "Israel lobby", and believe the term "Jewish lobby" to be a misnomer. To quote them, we explicitly rejected this label as inaccurate and misleading. Please don't inaccurately mislead readers regarding their beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, you are clearly not understanding the quote - please read it again, it is at the top of this section. In fact this paragraph discusses "the Lobby" and notes that some (e.g. Israeli media) refer to this lobby as the "Jewish lobby". Your misnomer argument is absurd, given that it is based purely on misinterpreting an interview one of them gave and has nothing to do with this paragraph. Please read this paragraph and refrain from attempting to substitute your own view of what M&W are "really" intending by referring to an irrelevant interview. Jgui (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, chime in if I'm wrong here - the crux of the problem is that Jgui feels that M&W are talking about the Jewish lobby while Jayjg feels they are talking about the Israel lobby? Shell ^babelfish 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, no the real crux of the problem is that I have identified a relevant quote from a WP:RS that is being blocked from insertion by an editor who is clearly misinterpreting WP Policy, and using that misinterpretation of policy to justify removing the quote. This is fundamentally a WP Policy issue, so your attempt to tie the hands of the participants of this discussion is really rather strange since it forces us to ignore the 2-ton elephant in the middle of the room. Can I ask why you think WP Policy is irrelevant? Jgui (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's your interpretation of the situation laced with a healthy dose of bias and has nothing to do with the actual difference of opinion here. What I'm trying to suss out is the bare facts of the disagreement so we can try to address it. If this is a fundamental WP policy issue, I haven't seen anyone explain it that way yet.

I think you may have misunderstood my other comment, I didn't ask anyone not to mention policy at all or to ignore it, I asked people to give more explanation than just "No, WP:OR", which is something you, personally, have complained about before. I think its important to hear the reasoning behind each others viewpoints and I hope it will help foster better understanding. Shell ^babelfish 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, in THAT paragraph W&M were talking about both phrases. They were saying that accusations of anti-semitism are lodged against people who criticize the "Israel Lobby" or - as the Israelis would put it - the "Jewish lobby." (The fact W&M later say they themselves don't use the phrase is irrelevant.) So it is perfectly fine to use that paragraph as a criticism of all of those who alleged that using the phrase "Jewish lobby" - especially critically - is defacto antisemitic. (I'm still not sure if that's how Jgui wants to use the paragraph.)

However, it would be stronger if there was a paragraph under definitions illustrating that the phrases are used interchangeably and soon I'll suggest one with reliable sources that are not original research. Carol Moore 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol discussion of Quote 1

(separated from above ongoing discussion)

• I'm not sure if the quote in question (which I just italicized) is from the March 2006 paper or the (published) Sept 2007 book. In both cases they are pretty much equating Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. According to the quotes below about their NOT using the phrase (which currently are in the article), it is not until Sept 23 2007 and after -- and ONLY in response to hostile statements and questioning -- that they draw a clear distinction between the two terms. Therefore I think it is OK to assume that at the time they wrote it they did not see much of a difference. (Remembering this impacts below, as I'll show.)
• Related to this quote and the issue of Jewish Lobby, Zionist Lobby and Israel Lobby being interchangeable, I've recently found this wiki guideline:

Wikipedia:These are not original research "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented." Carol Moore 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not sure why you're continually bringing this up. What is described in that essay is not what has been done in the article. And, it's not a guideline, it's an essay. Its policy implications are nil. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, Jqui, could you either describe where you want to use this quote or provide the link to the past, reverted edit in the article itself that shows how you think this quote is best used. I know it's been used in a number of contexts, some that were better than others. Carol Moore 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What are you asking, and of whom? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was asking Jgui where he wants to use the quote.
• I have replaced W&M Quote Issue 3 per the agreement in mediation.
• Re: Wikipedia:These are not original research. Why bother to have guidelines if people can claim policies invalidate them??? Seems silly. If it's important, it should be in policy. I'll put in on my (long) "do list." Carol Moore 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, did you read my previous comment? It's not a guideline, it's an essay. It so says right at the top. And in any event what was being done in the article was not what is described in that essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Experimenting around with just being logical, it's logical that if we all know that Jewish Lobby and Israel Lobby are frequently used interchangeably: a) there could be a section with examples of interchangeability and b) W&M quote #1 can be either an example of how that is done OR it can be assumed that they considered their use of "Israel lobby" to be interchangeable with Israelis' use of "Jewish Lobby" (even though they may not use the term themselves) when they talk about how the lobbies use false charges of antisemitism to stifle debate. A point which could go in criticisms of allegation that most uses of phrase "Jewish Lobby" are antisemitic. Carol Moore 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think I've seen some disagreement about whether these are interchangeable or used that way - would you happen to have come across a source that discusses that aspect at all? It doesn't look like everyone here agrees on the term, when its used or how its used so if there's any source that could clear that up, it would be really helpful to the process. Shell ^babelfish 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Long comment about Original Research and these discussions

Just to see if I can clarify policy vs guideline vs essay - except in a few cases (core policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V), policy is determined by community consensus and supposed to reflect current practice in the community; we often say that policy isn't proscriptive, its descriptive. Guidelines are just as enforceable as policy because again, they reflect the community's consensus on how to handle issues. Essays are discussions that expand the thoughts behind policies, guidelines or community trends, however, whether these are the thoughts of one person or widely accepted viewpoints varies widely from essay to essay.

Some other thoughts on the issue of original research since it keeps coming up - the idea of original research is not cut and dry; it is subject to interpretation and guided, except in very clear cases, by a consensus of editors. A couple examples of issues I've been involved in discussing:

When working on history articles, there's are sometimes discrepancies in accounts that require editors to discuss how best to handle presenting the incident. In one case, a sentence in a period historian's account contradicted other period reports; newer historical writers used this sentence to build an account of the event that differed with popular knowledge. Resolving the issue took some very thorough discussion and the end result, deciding that the older historian had simply erred, was technically original research - there was no source found stating that his report was in error, yet, given the preponderance of evidence from various sources (again, combining things could technically be called original research), we decided to make an editorial decision not to give weight to what was likely a mistake on the historian's part.

In another case, a journal article was written about a historical event that was later thought to be a hoax. Several paragraphs of the article described the story that was reported at the time, even giving references to those accounts; taken out of context, it could appear that the journal article was stating this story as fact - you needed to read the entirety of the article to understand that the author was simply relating the crux of the hoax for readers who were not familiar with it. While not strictly original research, using those few paragraphs out of context is still not being true to the source and thus, we decided it was not a sound editorial decision.

Working with sources and getting the text of an article correct is complex; policies and guidelines are there to help us find the right path, but in a lot of cases, they aren't bright lines. We still need to use common sense, cooperation and frank discussion to make certain that we're using sources correctly and reflecting their spirit as well as their text.

Its often helpful when discussing how or whether to include text to give a robust explanation of your position. This helps other editors understand your opinions better and allows you to have a more productive discussion. While there may be blatant cases where making a short statement such as "no, its just not NPOV" is appropriate, these should be rare and reserved only to times when you're sure everyone else involved in the discussion will be completely clear about your reasoning.

Could we try an experiment here? Since we seem to end up re-hashing the same arguments, could we try avoiding all reference to policy for the time being and just making logical arguments for our opinions? I don't think that we'll magically find solutions right away using this method, but maybe we can all understand each others positions a little better and find common ground to resolve these issues. Would anyone be willing to give this a try? Shell ^babelfish 06:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say another difference between policies and guidelines and essays is in the degree of scrutiny given to the contents. Policies are very closely watched, guidelines less so, and essays hardly at all. That is why policies most closely reflect accepted practice. In any event, I'm willing to give your idea a try. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell's comments were great til the "experiment" part, since our logic (or some might say "illogic") so far has been based on logical applications of policies (and guidelines from time to time). So not sure what our logic should be based on now. Just not mentioning the policies/guidelines but arguing from them anyway? Carol Moore 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting policy be ignored, I'm suggesting instead of saying "that's ridiculous, you know this isn't WP:V" say something like "I don't agree that's what the source says, we need a better source to make that claim." And now that I say that, it brings up another good point - if at all possible, everyone should try using "I" statements instead of "you" statments -- it avoids a world of problems and helps get your point across more clearly. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)