Talk:Israel lobby

"Controversial"

AIPAC is also controversial, but we don't mention that here. —Ashley Y 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the M&W paper appears here precisely because it is controversial. It's controversy is the essence of its appearing on this disambiguity page (this is not the same thing as saying that contoversy is the essence of the paper itself). Whether or not AIPAC is controversial (and, perhaps you meant that some of AIPAC'S activities are controversial rather than AIPAC itself; perhaps not), it would still need to appear on this disambiguation page. AIPAC's (perceived) controversial nature is not the essence of it's entry here.Dasondas 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for the poor use of apostrophes; it's an old bad habit that still shows itself sometimes when I'm not careful)Dasondas 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding and removing qualifies like "controversial" is a great pastime of people on Wikipedia. --Deodar 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, discussing it is a great pastime of some other people.Dasondas 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing it is usually considered preferable. —Ashley Y 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "discussing" in the sense of idly commenting on the arbitrary practice of adding and removing qualifiers. Discussing the actual appropriateness of a specific qualifier in a given situation, like you and I are (were) doing, is productive IMO.Dasondas 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mention wasn't idle; it highlighted the fact that the qualifier "controversial" is POV or OR unless the characterization is cited. -- 71.102.136.107 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lobby removed?

Why was the phrase "Jewish lobby" removed from this page? The phrases "Jewish lobby" and "Israel(i) lobby" are often used synonymously/interchangeably; also, we have the "Israel lobby" redirect listed on the "Jewish lobby" disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby_%28disambiguation%29), so why not vice versa? --WassermannNYC 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]