Jump to content

Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Dawkins

Without getting into the larger debates, I wonder if the Dawkins paragraph here could be rewritten as follows:

A comment by British evolutionary biologist and atheist writer Richard Dawkins in 2007 in an interview in the Guardian drew fire for its use of the phrase. Discussing the limited political clout of atheists in the United States, Dawkins said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."[26] The comment was criticized by commentators who suggested that it played into traditional antisemitic stereotypes. David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian on Richard Dawkins use of the term, states that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."[27]

This would seem improved, particularly under the heading. Otherwise it's also a bit strong to say he was accused of being antisemitic, as compared with perhaps equally many who said the comment was antisemitic, or said otherwise. Any thoughts appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually your version adds a lot of opinion statements, which the original statement does not. My problem is a) the POV presentation, which I change below in bold, and b) there's just more material than the subject is worth, and therefore unbalanced. Either Cesarani or Gee statement should be eliminated, otherwise looks like POV piling on to me.
Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and atheist writer, stated in an interview with the Guardian entitled "Atheists Arise": "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." He was accused of "repeat[ing] the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the Islamic fundamentalists" and of making antisemitic claims.
IMHO: USE ONE OR OTHER - or shorten Gee to 25 words or less.
David Cesarani, commenting in The Guardian on Richard Dawkins use of the term, states that "Mearsheimer and Walt would doubtless chide Dawkins for using the term 'Jewish lobby', which they studiously avoid in order to give no truck to anti-Jewish innuendo."
Henry Gee, Senior Editor at Nature, and author of a number of non-fiction books, said that the he found Dawkins's words "frightening": On the face of it, Dawkins wishes the atheist lobby had the success of what he sees as the Jewish lobby. That’s fine – but only superficially. However, the term ‘Jewish lobby’ is deeply loaded, and has been used by anti-Semites to raise the age-old canard that the world is controlled by a global Jewish conspiracy, an accusation used by many regimes, ancient and modern, for discrimination against the Jews.[21]
Carol Moore 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Thanks, I saw after I posted that this related to the discussion more than I realized. I mainly wanted to address the first sentence, now stating "Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and atheist writer, was accused of being antisemitic[24] [25] after using the term in an interview published in The Guardian." Otherwise it may be overdoing it, but I thought following the block quote with a summary sentence might better illustrate the general reactions to the statement, while deemphasizing the individual comments (and trying to make it a little more about the ideas and less about the individuals). However, if it's between several other options I may just leave it as a passing comment. Mackan79 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you write "He was accused", you should say by whom, or there's a verifiability problem. Also a WP:BLP problem. As for what to say about Henry Gee's credentials, I'd suggest we just Wikilink his name; he has his own article. I agree that the Dawkins incident is overblown; Dawkins is against all religions (see The God Delusion). We might identify Dawkins as author of The God Delusion, since we have an article for that and it leads readers to his positions on that subject. Gee doesn't have any books with Wikipedia articles (although he has a reference in List of Middle-earth animals because he wrote "The Science of Middle Earth", for which, amazingly, no Tolkien fan has yet written an article.) --John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I was getting rid of the first sentence about accusations, and adding one after the quote to say that some thought it invoked stereotypes. Beyond that I think Cesarani's comment lends itself to discussion more than Gee's, though I think I'd still prefer finding neutral-type summaries where possible (Cesarani's comment in some context could be worthwhile). Mackan79 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point about his book. Also I still think Cesarani is dumb speculation and POV, but length of Gee quote biggest problem. I'll give till end of day and put in new version per this discussion. Carol Moore 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Yes, it's also not entirely clear how much irony Cesarani intends as to Walt and Mearsheimer, which makes it hard to convert into something encyclopedic. I'd probably leave out Dawkins and keep the whole thing more to direct commentary than responses to what one or another person said, but I say that without having read the material in detail or knowing if it would work. If he's there, that's where I'm suggesting it could be incorporated into a discussion of some sort. Mackan79 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Highbeam as a source

Someone has been putting in cites to Highbeam for material like Jerusalem Post articles. It would be appreciated if editors could find a better link. Highbeam is a pay site that archives other sites; if the material can be found on the original site, or in "archive.org", that's better. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You didn't put in highbeam? Anyway, still would be helpful to see exact quotes.

Carol Moore 13:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think that the Highbeam links to the Jerusalem Post went in with this edit by Jgui. I haven't found them in an earlier edit, but there was so much reverting going on that I'm not sure I found the first occurrence of those links. I didn't put them in; I don't have a Highbeam account. I can't even get one; Highbeam doesn't seem to like Firefox users. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Those Highbeam citations are sloppy, and may have to come out. The citation The term has been used to refer to groups in other countries which promote the special interests of their Jewish members. <ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-95807415.html Seven Days], [[Jerusalem Post]], June 18, 2004</ref> has problems. I found the cited pages in the Internet Archive here, and I couldn't find anything specific about a Jewish lobby, other than a plan by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on some kind of terrorist alerting system. --John Nagle (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jgui put his Highbeam search results on a subpage of his talk page [1] where Google found them. I still can't match those results to the full text of the pages in the Internet Archive. I think the "Seven Days" section has nothing to do with the subject; it's just a heading the Highbeam search engine picked up. So I'm on the wrong page. Can someone with a Highbeam account find the correct cite for this info? The Jerusalem Post pages are in the Internet Archive, but they're not searchable there. --John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest edits

I've made the following edits:

  1. I've removed the statement by the non-notable Edward Tivnan
  2. I've removed the lengthy paragraph by Mearsheimer and Walt about the Israel lobby, in which they state that people who claim there is an Israel lobby are accused of antisemitism. We already quote M&W twice elsewhere in the article, so there's an obvious problem of WP:UNDUE, and even if there weren't, their comments are about the Israel lobby and so belong in the Israel lobby in the United States article (or perhaps the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy article). As a reminder to editors here, this article is about the Jewish lobby, there is a separate article about the Israel lobby (more than one, actually, and all quite awful).
  3. I've restored the quote from David Cesarani, he's obviously relevant, and writes frequently on the topic of antisemitism. The use of the terms "speculative and unencyclopedic" to describe it, aside from being incorrect, have no relationship whatsoever to Wikipedia policy.
  4. I've restore the original intro; the re-wording by Boodles turned it into unsourced original research (and inaccurate to boot), and the alternative would have been to slap an "or" and "fact" tags on it, then delete in a couple of days once it became apparent that the claims couldn't possibly be sourced.
  5. I've removed the sentence "The term has been used to refer to groups in other countries which promote the special interests of their Jewish members." - as has been explained and proven before, this is just original research. Don't bring sources that use the term, bring sources that describe or explain it.
  6. I've unfortunately had to NPOV some wording that was POVd - we can't say that everyone "states" and "writes" things, but Vidal only "claims" them.
  7. I've re-organized the material so that the related material is together - for example, the M&W material and the criticism - the previous division was arbitrary and fairly nonsensical. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The zoologist's scratching post remains an UNDUE/RS problem, but other than that this isn't half bad Jay.--G-Dett (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Henry Gee was restored to the article by Carol Moore[2], and rightfully so, as he's as good a source as others used in this article. For example, we quote extensively from Walter John Raymond's Dictionary of Politics which was, of course, self-published. Also, WP:BLP applies to comments made about Gee, even on Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your post. Walter John Raymond was a political scientist, obviously better suited than a zoologist as a source for this article. His book is a standard scholarly reference work that's gone to seven editions. He did indeed found Brunswick Publishing Corporation – is this what you mean when you say Dictionary of politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms is "self-published"? The implication being that this 760-page reference work, written by a PoliSci scholar and housed in the libraries of most major research universities in the world, is the RS-equivalent of a zoologist's online diary?
Incidentally, my description of that online diary as a "scratching post" etc. comes straight from Gee himself; that's what he calls the blog you're using as your source.
But see, in taking these ridiculous propositions seriously, I am again encouraging your problem, "enabling" it as the water-cooler psychologists would say.--G-Dett (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
He founded the publishing house precisely so that he could publish his "dictionary"; read his bio. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the unsourced statement to that effect in his WP article (which may even be true, for all you or I know). Your attempt to equate as sources for this article a standard political-science reference work, 760 pages long and in its seventh edition, to a zoologist's blogpost, was, nevertheless, a fatuous piece of trolling.--G-Dett (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's actually a comment on a blogpost, to be precise. I think even he'd probably be surprised to find it in Wikipedia, though I admit it covers the issue well enough that I don't mind including it. Mackan79 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
BLP also says we don't use comments from blogs as sources. I'm a bit mystified as to why Edward Tivnan, author of THE LOBBY: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. is "non-notable" but you then claim that Cesarani is obviously relevant. Catchpole (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
When you mention BLP, which living person are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Richard Dawkings. Catchpole (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean "Richard Dawkins". I've removed Henry Gee and restored Tivnan. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Jostle my beanbag and rouse me if you get a straight answer to this. Tivnan's book was published by Simon & Schuster, reviewed by the New York Times, etc. Jay's structural revisions aren't half-bad, but the RS-sophistries appear to be his usual street hussle, same old scam.--G-Dett (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Problems with Jayjg Edits that Need Changing

  • Word count shows User:Jayjg’s new edit gives the article an even more unbalanced emphasis on anti-semitic uses:
    • NPOV Old Version: Descriptive: 2026 -- Antisemitic: 3454 (Both criticism about 1200)
    • POV New Jayjg Version: Descriptive: 2031 -- Antisemitic: (3617 plus most of Criticsm 1736) = 5353
  • ”Antisemitic/ and or Perjorative” section heading is both WP:OR and WP:POV. Where is the quote saying that highly critical and “perjorative” criticisms of specific acts of any “Jewish Lobby” supporting various state crimes against humanity in Israel or elsewhere is the same as antisemitic? (It would have to be balanced by quotes contesting that allegation of course.)
  • The Lasky quote doesn’t even make sense. the whole quote. His statement also doesn't make sense, more importantly it's WP:Undue and speculative, not to mention confusing and unedifying. Like Cesarani, sticking in people's odd ball opinions does not added to sum of knowledge and just POV_pushing.
  • The older (NPOV) version's two criticism sections, following the Descriptive and Antisemitic sections, make it clear what is being criticized and are NPOV. Your one criticism section leaves mostly POV section criticizing alleged antisemites and to average reader it makes no sense why it is called criticism.
  • The relevant removed M&W quote from early 2006 clearly conflates the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Their statements more than a year later that Jewish lobby is not synonymous with Israel lobby evidently was a change of mind. (So the comments should be dated.) But then it verifiability, not truth that matters, right? We do need a quote that makes that fact even clearer, of course, since it is DONE all the time, just not clearly described as being done all the time.
  • Removing Edward Tivnan, author of THE LOBBY: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy is POV pushing against WP:NPOV policy.
  • Keeping Ceasarani in is also POV pushing which is against WP:NPOV policy. (Note, I don’t have a problem with a blog on a reliable source, since those are usually passed by editors.)

I will therefore be making above changes others haven't. reverting the whole article back to this version tomorrow leaving for Jayjg’s minor style edits, lansky quote if it is ever clarified, David Johnson incident and leaving out “countries” sentence until proper quotes are presented. I’ll let others argue on lead since I don’t have strong opinion right now. Carol Moore 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol:
  1. You can't decide what an article should contain based on word counts, and arbitrary decisions about which types of usage should have more material devoted to them. We have to go where the sources lead us, not decide beforehand what the article should contain, then try to support that thesis - please stop doing so.
  2. Regarding the section title itself, Boodles added that:[3] I don't feel strongly either way.
  3. Regarding something being "confusing and unedifying", it, like your comments about Cesarani, appear to have nothing whatsoever to do with policy. Can you please relate your concerns with specific material directly back to policy?
  4. The version I have restored is the NPOV version; please re-read it and the relevant WP:NPOV policy.
  5. Regarding the M&W quote about the Israel lobby, it simply cannot go in here, because it is about the Israel lobby. No version of this article can contain it, though it may, as pointed out, belong in the Israel lobby in the United States article (or perhaps the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy article). It simply cannot stay, because it is about the Israel lobby. Please respect policy.
  6. Regarding "Edward Tivnan", you have not explained what you mean by "POV pushing", nor have you explained who he is or why he would be relevant. Please do so.
  7. Regarding Cesarani, your complaint has now changed from "speculative and unencyclopedic" to "POV pushing", but, again, you haven't stated exactly which part of which policy applies. Cesarani is an expert on antisemitism, who commented directly on Dawkins use of the term "Jewish lobby". Please direct your concerns to specific elements of policy you feel are being violated. Quote the policy, and explain how Cesarani's quote violates it.
Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed Jayjg's longer reply directly so will insert my other reply as part of that...
  • Word count just to make clear how much material removed
  • Boodles, I'm taking out perjoratively again for reasons mentioned above.
  • With Cesarani, I'll just agree with Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources which clearly says blogs can't be used to talk about living persons (which Cesarani did on Dawkins). I think this policy needs to be changed so that major mainstream edited blogs don't apply - or at least to mention that blog entries that generate mainstream news should be included. Nevertheless, I think this is one more strike vs. Cesarani quote. (See talk above for my other strikes.) In wikipedia, avoiding BLP defamations, as you know, rules. One place you can revert 10 times a day!
  • RE; Tivan I agree what others said, see their talk refs

Carol Moore 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

  • The amount of material removed is irrelevant; what matters is following what the sources say.
  • Regarding Cesarani, this is the third argument you've made for removal; however, unlike regulars blogs, the Guardian's blog is edited in the same way as the newspaper itself: The site is edited by Georgina Henry, former deputy editor of the Guardian. Matt Seaton is the deputy editor, Brian Whitaker is a commissioning editor, Theresa Malone is chief sub and Mary Clarke is the editorial assistant. Richard Adams and Conor Clarke are commissioning editors based in Washington.
  • Regarding "Tivan", try to use your own words. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Four new quotes

The first makes important point.

1. Linguistics professor Hagit Borer asserts that the “Israel Lobby” is “also known as the Jewish Lobby, or as AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee)...” REF:Transcript of KPFK radio program Debating the Primacy of The Pro-Israel Lobby, The Debate Between James Petras and Norman Finkelstein, moderated by Hagit Borer, April 18, 2007.

2. Do Zionists Run America? by Allen Ruff. Review of James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States(Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006) 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." He adds: "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.

3. Challenging the power of the Israel Lobby: What should be done? James Petras, 09.29.2006 A number of writers have recently written critical articles or reviews about the power of the pro-Israel or Jewish Lobby and its influence on US policy in the Middle East. Most of these writings emphasize the power of the lobby over Congress, the two major parties (especially the Democrats) and the Executive branch. Some even describe the pro-Israel lobbies and the allied Jewish federations, the numerous propaganda institutes described as ‘think tanks’, publications as well as their influence or control over the mass media, from Hollywood, the print media, television to corporate “public” radio. However these critics and analysts paint themselves into a corner, attributing to the Jewish lobby so much power as to virtually incapacitate any effort to counter its influence and change the direction of US policy. The image of a near-omniscient and omnipotent Jewish lobby overlooks its vulnerability and significant issues around which an opposition or counter-hegemonic movement can be organized in the United States.

4. Israel Lobby's Pull Pales Next to Evil Saudi Input By Youssef Ibrahim September 25, 2007 That there is a Jewish lobby in America concerned with the well-being of Israel is a silly question. It is insane to ask whether the 6 million American Jews should be concerned about the 6 million Israeli Jews, particularly in view of the massacre of another 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. It's elementary, my dear Watson: Any people who do not care for their own are not worthy of concern. And what the Israel lobby does is what all ethnic lobbies — Greek, Armenian, Latvian, Irish, Cuban, and others — do in this democracy. Carol Moore 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Who is Hagit Borer? What do you think the Ibrahim quote adds? Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hagit Borer (shown in either blue or red), is a linguistics professor, who moderated a debate on our subject at hand.
Youssef Ibrahim, possibly answering a rhetorical question, states what he thinks should be obvious, and why, and then goes on to note what other similar ethnic groups do, which brings to his quote both legitimacy and NPOV. He also notes that the largest Jewish population (US), supports a similar population in Medinat Yisrael, because a similar number were exterminated during the Holocaust. This last thought notes anti-Semitism, which along with earlier 19th-Century, European incidents, was the primary cause and impetus for the establishment of political Zionism by Herzl, et.al.
The second (Ruff) ref (which is not a rough ref) brings in the very important term "Zionist lobby", which is historical fact and easily RS-able, that might otherwise be argued on spurious OR grounds. It is however, the link that that establishes the 'lobby' group within the Jews of the world as well as in America.[4][5] (Other than some lead-in, I am starting the 'History section' there; My (historical perspective) POV is that the terms should not be "used interchangeably," but at times may be used that way (after all three were established, and have since been tied-at-the-hip. Comments?) The question asked, "Do Zionists Run America?" is extremely important, because it highlights part of the 'Israeli(Jewish?) identity crisis'and tends to confirm the, as yet single, Tivnan quote now in the article.
The third (Petras) ref brings up issues that must be included in an encyclopedic discussion of our subject; they are basic and illuminating in regard to understanding the subject, rather than just describing it; I see it as one of those Wiki-basic "for the benefit of the readers" things. With a quick step to my soapbox, his last sentence happens to (somewhat) state my greatest personal fear concerning our subject, because Messianic fervor for Eretz Israel may become detremental to support for and longevity of Medinat Yisrael, given the 'modern' world's view of equal, human and civil rights for all peoples. An recent indication of how this difference can go awry is indicated here Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
CO48, again, who is Hagit Borer? The website that linked to her told me nothing about her really. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Re. interchangeability of terms, it is obvious from any google alert subscription or internet search that in most discourse by everyone from Jews to antisemities the terms ARE used fairly interchangably. These quotes were best I could find so far that reflect that fact. The critics we quote here are some of the few people who object to that.
Obviously the historical link between use of terms Zionist and Jewish lobby needs to be clarified but this is not place for hsitry of all these lobbies - Israel lobby articles better place.
While I have not had time to play with it, my idea was to put quotes that make interchangability point briefly in descriptive section, with Australian BB ADC quote first to put "descriptive" uses right up front.
Let's try to avoid long soap boxes because it tempts others to do so - don't start me on libertarian property rights and right to self-determination only on justly acquired property ;-) (A view rejected by many on both sides of issue.)
Carol Moore 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, the questions remain unanswered:
1) Who is Hagit Borer, and why would we quote her? Please be very explicit about the response.
2) Who is Allen Ruff, and why would we quote him in Monthly Review, a socialist magazine run by committed Marxists? The webzine and author seem rather extremist; for example, the section in the quote refers to "Israel's racist and expansionist practices".
3) Given your putative objection to "self-published" sources, why would you include a self-published quote from Petras' personal website? Also, please note, Petras again simply uses the term, but does not describe or define it.
Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To start, your edit summary reads: (Carol, I would have hoped that you would work through the mediation, rather than continually trying to force policy-violating material into the article. In any event, see Talk: and the mediation) Please tell me where this is a rule of mediation. Also, I gave you a whole week to comment on this or let me bring to mediation.
  • 1)Your only and single question or comment before was on Borer - therefore I had to assume you had NO problem with the rest of the quotes. And I answered it by putting her faculty summary as one of two references after her name.
  • 2) Allen Ruff "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Monthly Review is on wikipedia. You thought that was sufficient when you compared DissidentVoice.Org (knocked off wikipedia for no references) to Jewish Virtual Library (which is still on wikipedia despite having no references). What evidence do you provide per Wikipedia:Rs#Extremist_sources that this source is "widely acknowledged" as extremist?
  • 3) In wikipedia policy there is a difference between self-published sources libeling people per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources and self-published sources which are OK per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Now I wasn't sure how much might be relevant but since no one had commented, I had to wing it. Carol Moore 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Verifying Summaries through sharing original text

As you may have noticed I've been frustrated by this issue and brought it up in mediation. Waiting for Jayjg response:

  • Safire quote - Since we do not know what the original quote is, it could be it reads something like Some people in England refer to the "Jewish Lobby." "Kosher Lobby" is an even more perjorative term for the "Israel Lobby. So it is important to know the exact quote to see if what is written is an accurate - OR inaccurate - summary. If we don't get exact quote we should delete it.
  • Lasky quote - looking at source I think below is a more accurate, less confusing summary. Also brings up question of where this quote belongs since "unfortunate" does not mean "antisemitic" (and neither does perjorative, including in this context.) New suggested description:

Michael Lasky, author of The Language of Journalism, notes that Alexander Walker uses the "unfortunate phrase about the 'Jewish Lobby'" when he writes about "the 'Nazi'" films of Leni Riefenstahl. Lasky "imagines" Walker was not being "perjorative" but "only wanted to suggest that he agreed with 'the Jews' in thinking that those famous Third Reich documentaries were more propaganda than art."

  • Levey-Mendes quote - Given the above I think we should delete this if we don't get the exact quote for verification (quoted part sounds innocuous): According to Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Philip Mendes, the term is used in Australia as a pejorative description of the way in which the Jewish community influences the Liberal Party "by talking to its leaders and making them aware of Jewish wishes and views".REF:Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Philip Mendes. Jews and Australian Politics, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, ISBN 1903900727, p. 91.

And I do think this is a WP:OR attempt to conflate perjorative with antisemitic without providing a source that does so explicitly. Carol Moore 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

  • Carol, Safire is quoted exactly in the footnote. The original quote is right there, there's no "summary" involved.
  • This is what Lasky says:

    The unfortunate phrase about a "Jewish lobby" was also used by that otherwise unexceptionable stalwart of the Evening Standard, Alexander Walker, writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl. I imagine he didn't intend in pejoratively but only wanted to suggest that he agreed with "the Jews" in thinking that those famous Third Reich documentaries were more propaganda than art.

  • My summary was Michael Lasky describes the term as an "unfortunate phrase", and "imagines" that Alexander Walker's use of it while writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl was not intended pejoratively. My summary is accurate and more succinct, as is obvious.
  • Given the other summaries were accurate, this hyper-questioning of quotes is unreasonable. Nevertheless, I've provided the exact quotation. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finally clarifying Safire on the mediation page.
I think your Lasky summary is *really bad* because it took me reading the original twice to figure out what you are saying - so I assume average reader would have more problems. Can others comment?
Thanks for Levey-Mendes - actual quote does make more credible. So now the question is - does pejorative mean critical disapproval or derogatory demeaning?

Carol MooreCarolmooredc {talk}

Regarding the meaning of "pejorative", of what relevance is your question? Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Pejorative" means "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force." So it is refering to the derogatory meaning. As for Lasky, I think I understand it perfectly fine. I don't see what the problem with Jayjg's summary is. Where it belongs, well we don't have an "offensive" or "derogatory" section, both of which would be good places to put it, so antisemitic seems fine to me. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Use of Pejorative here is WP:OR and WP:SYN The meaning of Pejorative is disapproving, derogatory, derisive, dyslogistic, disparaging or belittling. Pejorative does not by itself mean 'bigoted" or "antisemtic." (Though obviously some pejorative comments could be.)
You only can say pejorative means antisemitic if you find a very reliable source's opinion that any/all "pejorative" comments, writings, etc. about the "Jewish Lobby" are defacto antisemtic - or - if "pejorative" is used in a sentence with quoted negative comments that are described as antisemtic. Therefore, the following statements are all WP:OR and should be removed - OR - moved to a NEW section on "Pejorative and Critical Comments" about "Jewish Lobby." (Some WP:RS comments by or about Petras', for example, could be there too.)
  • According to Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Philip Mendes, the term is used in Australia as a pejorative description of the way in which the Jewish community influences the Liberal Party "by talking to its leaders and making them aware of Jewish wishes and views".
  • William Safire writes that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more pejorative" term for "the 'Israel lobby'".
  • Michael Lasky describes the term as an "unfortunate phrase", and "imagines" that Alexander Walker's use of it while writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl was not intended pejoratively.
Carol Moore 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, when the section title used to say "Pejorative and/or antisemitic", you objected to it - we can return that title if you like. Now, if you're concerned about Titles in the article being Original Research, can you explain which sources describe the term as "Descriptive"? Because we've got a whole section with that title - see, for example, this edit, where you insert that Title. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Re. Equating pejorative with antisemitic being WP:OR - that now has more specific mediation section
  • If the content equating pejorative with antisemitic is WP:OR, adding a section title that WP:OR equates them is just as WP:OR.
  • You have not answered question on equating pejorative with antsemitism being WP:OR, per above. Hope you will answer on mediation page.
  • Descriptive is discussed for second time in mediation in this mediation section.Carol Moore 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Since your general response to all questions is "it is mediation discussion," at this point, we should probably have all continued discussion to the mediation page. Yahel Guhan 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually am encouraging people to go over there by including links. But since requested, here's what I put there, which I think has been stated above in several forms, but maybe not:
Why "Descriptive" Section is Not WP:OR'

The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community." The article notes that: "The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power."[2]

  • Even if this is not sufficient, WP:NPOV encourages all views to be used if have WP:RS. And it is customary to give a section SOME title. "Descriptive" certainly seems NPOV.Carol Moore 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, do any of the sources describe the term "Jewish lobby" as "Descriptive"? I don't see any that do; rather, that is how you have described them. That's what makes it original research. As for the NPOV tutorial, it is neither policy, nor well written, nor relevant in this case. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Even the passer-by can see that "descriptive" is applied to the term "Jewish Lobby" (which I myself dislike, I wonder why we have to have such a dangerous article) is the word used in a heavily pro-Israel "The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power." I'm tempted to put a magnifying glass on every edit made by Jayjg to see how many are aimed at calling people antisemitic. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing "dangerous" about this article as long as it reflects reality that most uses are neutral or merely critical, not antisemitic. FYI, in this case I stuck that quote in to make the point about "descriptive" being an acceptable neutral title for a section. Now it is looking like definitions and other categories may be better, so that sentence isn't as necessary, though it does make a valid point. There are antisemitic uses - but usually in context of antisemitic pieces filled with generalizations and slurs that obviously are bigoted. I don't think the two examples (Dawkins and Davies) quoted are truly antisemitic, just clumbsy (as are many comments by people who have not learned to talk about ethnic lobbying issues in a politically correct way), though people who are paranoid or playing political games might. 11:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carol MooreCarolmooredc {talk}

Outdent and bye -- Historically, regarding the Jewish lobby, the world has witnessed the following influential items/events (amongst many others) in historical order that should be considered for the sake of NPOV:

For those truly interested in learning, you might like this [6], Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington, by Isaiah L. Kenen. It is the oldest primary RS specifically on this article that I have found to date. I hope it helps and know Jay won't like it; I dont know if it has 'Jewish lobby' in it specifically. The main question now for editors and NPOV is only the degree of one’s Zion-ishness and how much anti-Semitophobia is self-attached.

So what about the Jewish lobby? Well, after two month's investment of time and effort and Mediation's locking other interested editors out, I will let you argue with Jay, el.al. and I will generally see you and him on other articles with more chances of progress. Jay, you won, see you elsewhere, some place where the anti-Semitism Info Box hasn’t been hung yet. Maybe, hopefully, you will leave that ‘chip on your shoulder' here. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The historical material you mention above belongs in the Israel Lobby article - which I notice does NOT have such a section. I'd say get going on it there. And there should be a link mentioning that from this article. That it was and is called the Jewish or Zionist lobby as well certainly is relevant and we've developed some good quotes for that purpose here. Carol Moore 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Surely this should be merged into Jewish conspiracy?

'Jewish lobby' as used in this article is just another term for the old 'Jewish world-dominating conspiracy', just with slightly more honesty than Zionist lobby. John Nevard (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't bother to read the article which includes mainstream and non-antisemtic uses of the word - not to mention the last two years of talk about all the Jewish and mainstream uses of the term. And while it is verboten to mention in the article itself the many USES of the phrase by Jewish and mainstream sources, a simple internet search will show how often it is used that way. Also you'll notice that the only two "examples" of anti-semitic use are Davies (who was merely critical of Israel lobbyists) and Dawkins (who was trying to use Jewish community organizing skills as a positive role model) so even this article only talks about the phenomena, doesn't even illustrate it. Carol Moore 11:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You know, possibly lost with the whole Dawkins thing is whether you can even apply this paradigm to someone who is specifically talking about religious lobbies and the need for another atheist lobby. Is there not a difference between someone writing a paper on the "Jewish lobby" in the abstract, vs. someone talking about the Atheist lobby vs. the Christian lobby vs. the Jewish lobby? It seems to get into whether this is always intended as a phrase or sometimes simply as an adjective and a noun. Mackan79 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Working alternative to current version based on Mediation discussions

I have edited the existing version of the article, which Shell just unblocked (thank you), in order to produce a proposed alternative to the current version based on the Mediation discussions that we have been having. Please note that I DID make changes that are still being discussed in Mediation: I am not attempting to pretend that these issues are all resolved and that this version fixes all of the Mediation disputes.

I have, however, tried to make my edits consistent with any compromises that have been proposed in Mediation, and I have put aside topics that Shell has stated are "closed" and I have left out those edits.

My primary goal is to give the editors who are involved in Mediation against Jayjg a working version of the document that is up to date - the last version that we all agreed to, and which led to the start of this Mediation, is some months old and has had significant changes by Jayjg and others since that time. My goal, then, is to produce a working version of an alternative to the Jayjg document that the other editors can coalesce around. This also has the benefit of making the differences between the mediation groups' versions of the article explicit.

Hopefully it will be seen that the changes I have made are consistent with WP policies and guidelines, in the goal of producing a better version of the article acceptable to all involved editors.

To clarify and enumerate the changes that I made:

1) First let me state what I did NOT do: I did NOT remove any cited text from the existing version of the article as last edited by Jayjg and as frozen in time for the last month. I added some cited text, I reordered the sections to give them a more logical structure consistent with other WP articles, and I made changes as discussed in Mediation.

2) Added USLobbies box consistent with its definition. This had been removed and has not been discussed so far in Mediation.

3) Moved the dictionary definition to the top of the definition section.

4) Moved "Criticism" section to follow the "Definition" section, and renamed it "Definition criticisms" since these are all criticisms of the "Definition" and should therefore follow the "Definition" section.

5) Moved B'nai B'rith description and criticism to the "Definition criticisms" section since it is primarily a criticism of the definition as being inadequate due to the term's sometimes Antisemitic tone; also it is a good transition to the next section "Antisemitic and/or pejorative claim"

6) Changed M&W paragraph in "Definition criticisms" to be consistent with Carol's proposed compromise (of adding context to an existing quote), which has not been further discussed or resolved in Mediation, but seems a reasonable working compromise to consider.

7) Added Bard's experience at AIPAC (in addition to his current employment) as currently under discussion in Mediation.

8) Left the "Antisemitic and/or pejorative use" section unchanged, except to change the name of the section to "Antisemitic and/or pejorative claim", since this is a disputed usage, and should not be stated in the section title in WP's voice.

9) Reintroduced the "Antisemitic claim criticism" section which had been deleted.

10) Added back the full M&W paragraph to this section which was being disputed in Mediation, but is now archived. The compromise suggested was to include more context for this quote.

11) Added back M&W current employment titles, consistent with the proposed compromise in Mediation.

12) Moved "Activities" section to follow all the discussions of the meanings of the term. It was out of place in its previous location, and should be located after all the definitions and meanings of the term have been presented.

13) Added to the "Activities" section another quote discussing Jewish lobby from the Tivnan book where he claims to date the start of a "full-fledged Jewish lobby" to 1943.

I will also put a note to this edit on the Mediation page. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good step forward. It covers the three main uses of the term, talks about what the Jewish lobby does, and covers the antisemitism issue from a neutral point of view. so we seem to be basically on track. I may have some minor comments to offer later, but for now, I don't see any pressing need to touch the article. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As a simple matter, the mediation concluded that there was no reason to add Bard's 15 year old experience to his description, nor any agreement to include the M&W irrelevancies about where they made their statement. Nor, of course, did we agree to include the material that M&W write about the Israel lobby, since this article is about "Jewish lobby", not the Israel lobby. The USLobbies infobox was removed, since the "Jewish lobby" is not a defined lobby in any sense, particularly the sense used in the infobox. The B'nai Brith definition is as good as any other, and there was no reason to move it down, much less remove it from the definitions section entirely. The division of the criticisms into "definitions criticisms" and "antisemitism criticisms" is fairly nonsensical and arbitrary - for example, M&W dispute the term itself, they do not provide "antisemitism critism". This was a low blow, quite poorly done, jgui. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What about all the other changes? So were Jayjg's recent mass changes within the one revert rule? Yoo Hoo Moreschi. Carol Moore 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
We're in a mediation, and the second the article was unprotected Jgui decided to do an entire POV re-write, based on the false claim that the mediation supported it, and in fact, inserting material that the mediation specifically rejected. And you, Carol, seem interested only in getting people sanctioned, rather than working on the mediation. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, you have to read more carefully and avoid accusing other editors of making "claims" that they have never made. It leads to a poisoned atmosphere and is definitely not consistent with WP behavior guidelines. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, the mediation "concluded" nothing of the sort about Bard, because that is not a decided issue. Nor is the M&W paragraph about Jewish lobby (not Israel lobby) resolved. Although these are not yet resolved, it is not at all clear why you think "your" version is the one that must be here while mediation is ongoing - could you perhaps explain that? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you claim the issues were not resolved, then why would you insert the disputed text, claiming it was based on the results of the mediation? Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, did you read what I wrote above? Please stop putting words in my mouth that I never said - it is not fair and it is not productive. Instead could you please answer the question I asked you - it is not at all clear why you think "your" version is the one that must be here while mediation is ongoing - could you perhaps explain that? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please review begging the question. "My" version is this one. Note the difference between that version and the current one.[7] Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the issues were not fully resolved (i.e., whether it was important that Bard worked at AIPAC; left it that more evidence needs to be found; perhaps Jqui mentioning which publication he worked on this time was that info).
However, I also agree it's good to bring the proposed changes here first or at least only make a few changes at a time, with different editors having input. Meanwhile hopefully Moreschi will tell us just what he means by one revert, per WP:revert, so we can stop this mass reverting.
I have a list of things will bring up soon, some settle in mediation, some not brought up or dismissed as too complicated or not resolvable. Carol Moore 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What DOES One Revert Rule Mean for this article?

I asked Moreschi on his/her talk page and didn't get a response. Perhaps we could agree on what it means? Thanks. Carol Moore 01:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Lobbying is good.

Lobbying is a necessary part of american democracy. Lobbyists in general and Jewish groups were/are responsible for connecting politicians to their people. Such lobbyists are responsible for getting the USA out of Vietnam, the blacks the right to vote, cutting down on car emissions and getting noriega. Lobbyists pushed the USA to enter WW2 to stop the German army. Lobby is not a bad word. AIPAC, J Street, even the church are lobbies as is the military industry. In fact AIPAC is the 6th lobby and the church is number 3.

Jewish lobbies have been behind the USA leaving Vietnam, public housing efforts, veteran administration rights and the development of internet. Lobbying needs a defender here. It's not a bad activity and I'll stand up as its defender. The Jewish lobbies are big strong but the church lobby is even bigger and in favor nowadays of the same things AIPAC wants: entering Iran for example. Jewish Lobby is in step with America's way of public involvement in feedback to the gov. AIPAC or J Street have interests in the Middle East but these are on the heels of general USA democratic expansion.

raquel samper
comunidad judia murcia
jewish community murcia spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia fluent (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Added capitalization and line breaks to above for readability, but changed no words. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't have anything about the J Street project. This is a new Jewish lobbying group, pro-Israel but not right-wing like AIPAC. "J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement." Writeups in Haaretz [8], the BBC [9], the Jerusalem Post [10], and the Washington Post [11], so we have some reliable sources. Some sources use the term "Jewish lobby"; the BBC, Salon, Slate, al-Jazeera, Haaretz, the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish World Review do, the New York Times does not. Here there's a clear distinction between the "Jewish lobby" and the usual AIPAC-headed "Israel lobby". --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It is amazing to me that more than half of google alert articles (and blog entries) describe it as a "Jewish" lobby but frankly haven't read most of them to see if they describe/define it in anyway other than mentioning in passing. But kept links for future reference. Again, it's a matter of finding a relevant and enlighting quote or summary of statement. Carol Moore 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The political landscape is changing. "J Street" seems to be positioning itself as a player should Obama win, but hasn't done much yet. AIPAC has close ties to the neocons and the Bush Administration. Something to watch; it's early yet. --John Nagle (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we do have an article on J Street. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
True. "J Street" is about a month old at this point. Much press coverage, so the organization is notable, but it hasn't done much yet. They haven't even decided which candidates to endorse. (There's a form on their web site for suggestions.) --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Which reminds me. Where did the "Lobbying" template go? Time to put it back? --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It was just for lobbying in US and term is used worldwide. Carol Moore 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Interchangeabililty of Jewish Lobby and Israel Lobby i.e. Wikipedia:These are not original research

  • Bad news is Mediation is stalled again over some misunderstanding... Can't remember what, at this point... Update: Hadn't gotten that far up my Watch List and low and behold it's back in business...
  • Good News is I just found this Guidelines (which will be pointed out does not trump policy, but then we make policy, don't we?)

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 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[J Street material moved to own section]

I am not sure if objections to the example of J Street have over-ridden my initial quote from Wikipedia:These are not original research at the top of this section. Generally speaking, what does Jayjg think of that guideline - totally bogus or what?? Carol Moore 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I'm not sure why you're asking me this. What is descibed in that essay is not what has been done in this article. And, it's not a guideline, it's an essay. Its policy implications are nil. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

J Street as "Jewish Lobby" Discussion

J Street seems to be referred to in the press as a "Jewish lobby", in contrast to AIPAC, "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". If the terms used to be interchangeable in a US context, they no longer are. Not sure what the article should say about this. --John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In my google alerts I have noticed that it is referred to that way a lot more than other groups, but then it is getting more press than a lot of groups cause it's new and perhaps more progressive media want to give it attention. On the other hand, the "J" in name "J street" may be causing an unconscious alliteration that spurs use of Jewish Lobby. And some right wing media may be trying to pull it into the fold by reminding it (and us) that it is first and foremost a "Jewish" lobby and should not go against Jews. And critics of Israel - and antisemites who use the phrase disparagingly - may want to remind readers that the group is still pretty conservative, for example supporting[ the Oslo accords which created bantustans.
A good solid WP:RS quote clearly making the point would be unassailable, of course. What's needed is mere recognition that phrases are used interchangeably by all sorts of sources, from mainstream to extremist antisemites, and context is usually only way to know how it is being used. Should be noncontroversial, but....Carol Moore 10:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It's getting interesting. J Street has been successful in getting McCain to reject the endorsement of John Hagee a (very) right-wing Christian pastor. Now JStreet is working on getting Lieberman to distance himself from Hagee. [12] Hagee has close ties to AIPAC; he gave the keynote speech at AIPAC's convention last year. [13]. J Street has been successful in drawing attention to some of the more embarrassing alliances between the Christian far-right, major Republicans, and AIPAC. For the first time in a long time, mainstream media have to distinguish between the Israel lobby, the Jewish lobby, and the AIPAC lobby. Newsweek writes about J Street in Washington's new Jewish lobby presses Israel. Arutz Sheva refers to J Street as an "American Jewish lobby. [14]. Use of the term "Jewish lobby" in Google News seems to be way up. --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they're still just examples of usage of the term, which, of course, is still original research. We've been through this before, so it shouldn't have to be explained to you again. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That line of argument died with the bogus claim of "neologism", and the narrow view of usage allowed for neologisms in WP:NEO. We've settled that. Please don't bring it up again. --John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As has been explained many times before, regardless of whether or not a term is a neologism, bringing examples of uses of it, that is, primary sources, is still original research. Please don't violate that policy again. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I've been so brainwashed by the WP:NEO discussion that I now apply these strict standards everywhere. Could you refresh where in Policy it let's us make claims like "The sky is sometimes red" and then list a bunch of WP:RS examples (I.e. something obviously true that needs examples. As opposed to questionable assertions like, say, "the sky is often green," even if one uses WP:RS "examples.") Thanks :-) Carol Moore 15:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
From WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Sources that simply use the term "Jewish lobby" are primary sources; we cannot draw our own conclusions based on the way we think they use the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Jay, sources that "simply use the term 'Jewish lobby'" are fine for this article. The argument that they're not OK was built on the idea that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism. When the claim that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism failed, you introduced a distinction I don't think anyone here including me understands, between "sources that discuss 'Jewish lobby'" and "sources that simply use the term 'Jewish lobby'." That distinction made internal sense when you were claiming that this article could only be about the term itself, but unless we're all missing something, it makes no kind of sense now.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, arguments and analysis based on sources that simply use the term are inadmissible in this article. The argument that they are inadmissible was always built on the idea that a synthesis using primary sources was original research, which is forbidden by policy. The WP:NEO argument was used solely to restrict the article to sources that discussed the term "Jewish lobby"; since I have compromised on that item, I am no longer insisting that sources used must discuss the term. However, that doesn't give people free reign to build arguments based on sources that simply use the term. And you, of course, both understand and approve of this argument; as you said in January:

"User:Jayjg is doing important work right now on the parallel article Jewish lobby; his overdue improvements there should be a model for us here. Specifically, he's emphasized the important distinction between primary-source material that uses the term and secondary source-material that discusses the term itself"[15]

You can use sources that discuss the term; you can use sources that discuss "the Jewish lobby". But you can't take a bunch of sources that use the phrase "Jewish lobby", and construct an argument based on your interpretations of how they use that phrase. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the below is more relevant to J street than I realized. (Was just thinking about obvious fact Jewish and Israel lobbies used interchangeably.) So tell me, Jayjg, if you feel this policy is totally wrong headed and encouraging synthesis, why don't you go delete it or change it so it is consistent?
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 11:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

(outdent)Jay, I'm still not getting it, and from the responses of others here it seems no one else is getting it. Can you explain the difference between "sources that discuss 'the Jewish lobby'" and "sources that use the phrase 'Jewish lobby'," and can you give concrete examples of each? How does a source use the phrase 'Jewish lobby' without discussing 'the Jewish lobby'? This is making my head spin.

You've quite fairly quoted my January statement, and I'm pleased you've finally recognized that I came to this page agreeing with you! But just so this is clear, those early statements of mine made exactly the same distinction you made when you were arguing from WP:NEO: the distinction, that is, between sources that discuss the phrase "Jewish lobby" and sources that discuss an alleged Jewish lobby. I have since shifted from the hard-and-fast position (for reasons I've stated before and am happy to lay out again) that this article can only discuss the term itself. And you say that you too have moved on from this demand ("compromised on that item"), but here's the catch: with this business about "sources that discuss 'the Jewish lobby'" being somehow different from sources that use the phrase 'Jewish lobby'," you seem to be simply reintroducing the very distinction and demand you claim to have dropped. Different glasses and a penciled-in moustache, but otherwise the same thing. What am I missing here?

P.S. Please – with all due respect – don't answer this question by hyperlinking to WP:NOR or quoting from that policy at length. I understand that policy well, and I understand that you think it's the relevant policy in the present case. What I don't understand is how this new distinction (between sources that use the phrase 'Jewish lobby and sources that discuss 'the Jewish lobby' ) differs from the old distinction (between sources that use the term and sources that discuss the term itself). As far as I can tell it simply reproduces it.--G-Dett (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you've never come to this page agreeing with me. You used that statement on another page as a weapon in your own ideological battle, but never informed me of your statement, nor in any way supported me in any subsequent discussions on this page. And, of course, that still has not changed; while claiming to have at some (unknown) time actually supported me in this debate, you nevertheless have somehow managed to show up here disagreeing with me yet again.
Regarding the issue itself, the statement about original research on the WP:NEO page is an accurate statement about original research, whether applied to a neologism or not. Sources that simply use a term are primary sources, and we cannot draw our own conclusions about how they use them:

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).

Note, it is An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) that is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
As for the distinction, this is the version that complies with WP:NEO. Note that every single source used in that version discusses the term. On the other hand, the current version, while not complying with WP:NEO, still more-or-less complies with WP:NOR, in that the sources used all discuss either the term or the subject of the article, but none simply use the term. Thus, in the current version, the material from Bard, for example, discusses the term, whereas the material from Goldberg discusses the subject. The former complies with WP:NEO, the latter does not. That is why I objected to the Goldberg material in the past, but now, as a compromise, have been leaving it in. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Jay, thank you for the effort but it still doesn't help much, because I've never understood your claim that the Goldberg material doesn't discuss the term. Anyway, what I need to know to be able to begin to understand your point is this: how can a source use the term "Jewish lobby" and yet somehow not "discuss...the subject of this article"? That's the distinction I don't understand.--G-Dett (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying you don't understand the difference between an article discussing a term - what it means, who uses it, what its implications are - and an article discussing the subject referred to by the term? Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Jay. Of course I understand that distinction, and have in fact typed thousands of words explaining it to editors (including yourself in the "allegations of apartheid" fiasco) who have said at various points that they didn't understand it.
For the umpteenth time, the distinction I don't understand is the one you've introduced between using the term 'Jewish lobby' on the one hand and discussing the subject of this article on the other. I do not understand how a source can use the term 'Jewish lobby' without discussing the subject of this article – unless, that is, you're back to claiming that this article can only be about the term itself.--G-Dett (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example: Zionist Occupation Government discusses the term "Zionist Occupation Government"; when it was invented, who uses it, why, etc. The article, however, does not discuss the subject referred to by the term - that it, it doesn't go on to describe the government of the United States, and how it is dominated by Jews. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So you are back to claiming that this article can only be about the term itself? Like with Zionist Occupation Government? Same deal? If so, then your "compromise" regarding the "neologism" claim has no practical consequences, none at all. Your "neologism" argument meant that the article could only be about the term itself. Now you're saying that neologism or no, the article can only be about the term itself. Tell me what I'm missing here. You've "compromised" on one distinction, then put forth another that seems identical to it.--G-Dett (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Err no, I'm not saying the article can only be about the term. You seemed not to understand what the difference would be between an article that was only about the term, and an article that discussed the subject as well, so I've explained it to you. In addition to sources that discuss the term, I'm also accepting, as a compromise, sources that discuss the subject, that is "Jewish lobby". That would include Goldberg's writings. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the diversion into the "about the term"/[[WP:NEO] issue, there's a new article this week, "The Other Jewish Lobby", in The Christian Century. This is about the split between J Street and AIPAC. J Street is "the other Jewish lobby", while AIPAC is "the pro-Israel lobby", or, in a quote in the article, the "Likudnik-Neocon lobby". We're starting to see "think piece" articles on the split. --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First, Zionist Occupation Government is NOT analogous to Jewish Lobby, since the latter is used all the time in headlines and articles by mainstream and Jewish media, while the former is used only by extremists. (I never use it, even jokingly.)
Second, the solution remains a SECTION on how Jewish Lobby, the pro-Israel lobby, Zionist lobby and even (if you can find more examples) the "Likudnik-Neocon" and Kosher lobbies are used interchangeably. Wikipedia:These are not original research makes the strongest argument for doing that. And in that context J Street Lobby also very relevant. I'm sure we can find lots of examples in talk archives. Including ^ Dennis Sewell, A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002. Carol Moore 02:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
"Note, it is An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) that is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." is not Wikipedia policy. That's just Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s claimed interpretation of it. Actual policy is that mere references from reliable sources cannot be "original research". WP:OR says "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." Drawing a conclusion from them may create a synthesis problem, but that problem affects the conclusion only. --John Nagle (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, actually, those weren't my words, I was quoting a Wikipedia guideline page. And random factoids without a conclusion are pretty meaningless. But I don't have to explain this to you, you already know it, and your constant invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't helpful. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: J Street issue, while I agree there is something going on with constant use of "Jewish Lobby" to describe J Street, the Christian Century article doesn't quite identify why, even if the title uses "Jewish Lobby." Most relevant quote is: Williams has a better grasp of American political dynamics than do most American journalists, who continue to assume that AIPAC is the only American Jewish game in town. Instead of promising Jerusalem to AIPAC, Williams advised Obama, he should develop "ties to J-street, the new Peace-Nowish lobby whose views seem to represent far more American Jews than AIPAC, which more and more looks like a Likudnik-Neocon lobby, prepared to fight to the last Israeli—and indeed the last GI—for their eschatological visions."
However, while a more explicit WP:RS explanation comes along, you might put some of this info in the "ACTIVITIES" section with some of the best WP:RS descriptions of J Street which explicitly in a sentence call it a "Jewish Lobby." The stronger your quotes and placement of them, the easier to make your case above. Carol Moore 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Try to find sources that actually discuss the Jewish lobby, not just mention the phrase, and try to find sources about groups that are more than 3 months old. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"Think pieces" on J Street and the "Jewish lobby" are starting to appear. This piece by Philip Weiss is relevant. He's a well known journalist, although this is just his blog. He mentions another leftist Jewish lobby, Breira, from the 1970s as well as J Street. --John Nagle (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
More analysis of J Street, and of Jewish lobbying efforts, has shown up. See "Who speaks for American Jews?" in The Guardian, which discusses some new poll results and compares the positions of J Street ("the American-Jewish peace lobby") with those of AIPAC. I'd mentioned before that a political split was appearing, and this article offers some confirmation. AIPAC is down to a 38% approval rating among American Jews. "All this again shows the weakness of Aipac when it is viewed in the context of the overall Jewish community. The hawkish policy pronouncements of the Israel lobby and specifically Aipac represent little more than themselves and their members when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict. The majority of American Jews don't agree." Haaretz has more on the split.[16] We probably have enough reliable sources to write about this now. --John Nagle (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither article uses the phrase, not to mention in an enlightening fashion. Hopefully some of this is going into the Israel Lobby article (which I don't edit because my only goal is to keep this article relatively NPOV). And still think a section showing how interchangeably phrases are used is necessary, but as I've said before, substantive material about Israel lobbying belongs in that article. (Still haven't bothered to look through all the most promising google alerts i've saved on the phrase.) Carol Moore 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The Guardian uses the phrase "the American-Jewish peace lobby". I've also seen "leftish Jewish lobby", "liberal Jewish lobby", and "conservative Jewish lobby" (meaning AIPAC). Journalists seem to be struggling with how to talk about the factions, but variants of "Jewish lobby" seem to show up frequently.. --John Nagle (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
All good for a section on how the phrases are used interchangeably which I keep procrastinating on. But just found a good quote on that from a WP:RS. One of these days... Carol Moore 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Here's a new Philip Weiss opinion piece: "Why This Election Is the Armageddon of the Neocons and the 2-State Solution". Weiss is discussing what J Street has done to the Jewish lobby: "So I have to hand it to J Street. It's already done it, it's split the Jewish world definitively, into neocons and non-neocons. It's successfully lobbied the lobby. The lobby is now divided in two and each guy gets a piece. McCain is going for the dark half, Obama is going for the light half, and betting, correctly I think, that the light half is stronger. I may not like the deal they come up with for Palestine. The Palestinians may not like it either. But god knows, after he smashes the neocons in November, Obama may get the world behind a deal. That's his game." That's a pithy analysis of the Jewish lobby in US politics right now. --John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A while back, in the mediation, I was saying something similar about the split in the Jewish lobby. Back then, it was considered original research to say that. Now we have a source. I'd like to have a second source besides Weiss, though. I expect one will appear; political commentary in this area is picking up. --John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, nowhere in that editorial does Weiss use the phrase "Jewish lobby". Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
For that, go back to Weiss's April article in The Nation, "AIPAC Alternative?", where he does use the phrase. --John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitic usage

I was looking through the references in the "Antisemitic and/or pejorative use" section, and noted that there are no references to antisemitic usages of the term. All we have are allegations of such usages from partisan writers.

Susan Jacob's paper just mentions the "Jewish lobby" in passing, in a section titled "(Some) antiSemitic themes." No examples are given. (When she writes about discrimination about Blacks or Arabs, she writes about higher incarceration rates, high numbers of deaths in custody, and underrepresentation in the political process. None of those issues, she writes, apply to Jews in the UK.)

Robert S. Wistrich (of the "International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem") is not properly footnoted. The footnote is just a link to Jacob's paper, which doesn't mention Wistrich. That needs to be fixed. The correct reference may be "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism". There, Wistrich says "Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative 'Jewish lobby,' the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli 'warmongers.'" He's just using the phrase casually, in the context of whether opposition to Israeli policies is antisemitism. There are no examples. (This quote might better belong in the New Antisemitism article.)

Michael Visontay's opinion piece in the Sidney Morning Herald talks about Jewish lobbying, but it's a piece on political tactics. It was about Jewish efforts to stop Hanan Ashrawi getting the Sydney Peace Prize, and various speakers from the Jewish community thought they might have gone too far with aggressive lobbying efforts. There's no mention of antisemitic activity from outside the Jewish community.

Levey and Mendes are represented only by a brief quote, but again, there are no ties to any incident of antisemitism, just a vague remark.

Safire mentions the term "Jewish lobby" being used pejoratively, but not antisemitically, in the British press.

The Chris Davis affair is the closest thing we have to a real-world event that involved both the "Jewish lobby" and antisemitism. Davis, if anything, was the victim of the Jewish lobby; he had to resign from a party leadership post (he remains in Parliament) for saying that he thought the Jewish lobby had too much power.

We've already discussed the Dawkins issue to death, so I'm not going to re-hash that here.

These references are almost all polemics or op-ed pieces from supporters of the Jewish lobby. We don't have any news-type incidents of antisemitism in a "Jewish lobby" context. It's all allegations. The heading should reflect this.

This also calls into question whether the "Antisemitism" box is appropriate for the article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree these are weak, the best thing would be to replace them with criticisms of actual antisemites who use the phrase. If you can find them. The most obvious example being A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby by Mark Weber at Institute for Historical Review. It used to come up first in google search. Now it comes up first after the wiki article and the wiki mediation (oi!!) Anyway, I haven't read it since last fall but as I remember, while most of it is pretty straightforward critique, there's just enough negative innuendo that you would recognize it as being antisemitic, even without knowing about the author or publisher. Yet when I searched for any critique of the article branding it as what it is, couldn't find!
Certainly my google alerts do produce a good 10-15% of material that comes close to or crosses that line. But I don't know if any of it gets a specific critique. So I would say keep searching for better examples and then delete the weakest examples, starting with the vaguest of all - "pejorative" uses. I mean does every group, faction, tendency, etc. in the world now get a section just on "pejorative" comments!?! Carol Moore 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The Institute for Historical Review is a "holocaust denial" organization, and is generally considered a nut group. Probably not a good source. I've looked before, too, and other than material published in countries with which Israel has had shooting wars, haven't found much in the way of antisemitic uses of the term "Jewish lobby". But keep trying. --John Nagle (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to directly above re: Institute for Historical Review being a nut group, isn't it generally understood that real antisemites ARE nuts? I find it absurd that with all the real antisemite nuts using the phrase, there isn't a critical quote about any of them in the article. Carol Moore 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The Wistrich citation was a duplicate (not a ref) of the Jacobs citation, and isn't a valid cite for Wistrich. So I removed the duplicate ref and put in a "citation needed". I have a link for Wistrich above, but it's to an excerpt on an order form for the Jewish Insitute for Political Studies. It's supposedly an excerpt from a UN document, and we should find the original. --John Nagle (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wistrich didn't use the term "Jewish lobby" when he sent in a statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The original statement to the UN [17] doesn't contain the term. The lead paragraph, in italics on the JCPA page [18], does, but that appears to have been added by the JCPA. There's an exchange of letters between Wistrich and Krug that uses the term "Jewish lobby", but the context is different.[19] (That would be a good cite in New Antisemitism, by the way.) I can't find out where the JCPA got that copy; it may just be some material written by a JCPA editor as a lead for the Wistrich article. This needs to be fixed. --John Nagle (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wistrich gives "an all-powerful 'Jewish Lobby' that prevents justice in the Middle East" as one example of a "classic anti-Semitic stereotype". I've restored the reference, which is exactly this context. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; now we have the correct link, which we did not have before. Of course, it's just a position statement by a non-neutral party, not an actual example of antisemitic usage. --John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally found an actual anti-Semitic usage of the term

See this image from this blog. The blogger also sees conspiracies involving the Catholic church ("Catholic-Hating Bigots for Obama"), MoveOn, gun control, and compact fluorescent lights[20]. We don't exactly have a reliable source here.

It's really hard to find an actual anti-Semitic use of the term on line, in English. I'm just putting in this note because this is about the only one I've ever found, and it's clearly WP:FRINGE. There are plenty of pundits and op-ed writers making allegations that the term is anti-Semitic, but none of them seem to give actual examples that use the term in an anti-Semitic context. I've asked several times for someone to find a reference, to justify the "antisemitism" section. So far, not much that isn't way out there. --John Nagle (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a pro-Israel person mocking Wicher, Tutu and Obama as alleged antisemites. Blogger introduces pic saying: "Let’s see if we can help Mr. Wicher and Mr. Tutu get their point across about that “powerful Jewish lobby” and “Zionist thought police”… this picture ought to do it." Carol Moore 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
After reading a few pages of his anti-Obama rants, I think you're right. --John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How odd, when I do a google search, the second link that comes up is www.rense.com/general27/jlobby.htm , a rant by Mark Weber, director of the Holocaust denial outfit the Institute for Historical Review. Did you notice how he includes the word Holocaust in inverted commas, 'Holocaust'? Did your web searches not turn this up? Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean the second link AFTER Weber's IHR article? But you only allow quotes by third parties criticizing people like Weber, not editors' WP:OR analysis that his writings (on the notorious IHR or elsewhere) are antisemitic. Carol Moore 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I have no idea what you are talking about. John and you brought up the subject of antisemitic sources using the term, and started doing OR analyses of which antisemitic sources used the term, and making obviously false claims that no antisemites did so. I merely pointed out your error. As for Weber, neither he nor his article are quoted in this article. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to figure out why you brought up the rense article in the first place. I have no idea what you were talking about. Carol Moore 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It was in direct response to John's statement that "It's really hard to find an actual anti-Semitic use of the term on line, in English." Perhaps you should re-read this thread from the start. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What's antisemitic about the Rense article? It's a quote farm to support his claim that the "Jewish lobby" is powerful. He cites Tutu, Goldberg and Finkelstein. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I'm so used to Jayjg nagging that mention of any mere "use" is "illegal" it never occurred to me that his vague comment referred to John's mention of a use in general, as opposed to a use to be put in the article.
Second, I believe the Rense version has deleted the couple of obviously bigoted statements from the original article on the Institute for Historical Review web page. , though I don't feel like going through to find them. I read through the Dec 2007 Updated article, which actually took out at least one questionable statement (by Charles Lindberg) that was in Rense version; I'm sure the version I read a year or so ago had something very telling; the concluding sentence is certainly borderline. I don't like IHR because in 1982 I was at a libertarian holiday party in LA where the then Director of IHR gave the host a Hitler Marching songs album and several people thought that was just great. YUK! So in my own experience people involved in it are questionable, and not much to show they've improved with newer directors. Carol Moore 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Jewish_Virtual_Library to get booted??

I note this has been tagged as non-notable and needing references to prove it's notable. Hmmm, if it gets deleted (like DissidentVoice.org was) does that mean we can't use quotes from it? (Like can't use any from DissidentVoice.org)? I'm sure someone will get busy pumping up article, like I keep meaning to do about DissidentVoice to re-insert it. Carol Moore 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Except that the article has a Notability section and several references. Please don't misuse the actions of a two-edit IP editor for political gain. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dang, didn't notice that. Thought I got you to jump and put it in :-) Which reminds me I happened upon the articles Jewish emancipation and Jewish question and they both looked like they needed some beefing up from someone knowledgeable since they are interesting and important. FYI. Carol Moore 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Misrepresentation of Jacobs and OR

Jacobs in no way suggests that a "vague suspicion" exists that the phrase is antisemitic. Rather, she writes:

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.

As is clear, she is saying that a contemporary form of the fear of a "Jewish conspiracy" is the phrase "Jewish lobby", when used in a certain way; the term "vague suspicion" is used to describe the more common who think the conspiracy might exist but are to polite to talk about it. "Vague suspicion" in no way modifies Jacobs's own views. Also, please don't insert your own original research regarding Jacobs's statements; it's not up to you to try to argue against them by adding "but does not offer any actual examples of such use of the term." Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The "original research" problem here is that we have a collection of partisan quotes presented as fact. The heading, "Antisemitic and/or pejorative usage", is an "unpublished synthesis of published material". It's appropriate in Wikipedia to say who said what, but not to go beyond that. It's also important to distinguish between the writers who actually found specific instances of antisemitic activity directly connected to the term "Jewish lobby" and those who are merely expressing their own opinions on the subject. The latter are primary sources for Wikipedia purposes and cannot be relied upon. There's original research in this section which needs to be rooted out. --John Nagle (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you aren't bringing to mediation. A few Comments:
  • As I believe I said way back when, the section should be called "Accusations of Antisemitic Use" since there is no real proof, just opinions and accusations. I don't think we need a first sentence opinion, but it should state these are opinions.
I'd remove:
  • As I was saying in mediation, the pejorative-related accusations. After all a "mild pejorative" statement about any group by itself hardly rises to Wiki quality; alleging someone somewhere made an unspecified pejorative one even less so.
  • The Dominique Vidal quote should be cut because she's no more an expert than Linguistics professor Hagit Borer who I still think has the chops to note that Israel Lobby and Jewish Lobby are used interchangeably.
  • The following statement is not terribly enlightening and just used to name drop. Bruno Bettelheim detested the term, arguing "The self-importance of Jews combined with the paranoia of the anti-Semite had created the image of this lobby."[11]
  • An example of an unencyclopedic opinion that at least should be labeled an opinion or accusation:Michael Visontay, editor of Australia's The Sydney Morning Herald, writes that "The way the phrase 'Jewish lobby has been bandied about in numerous letters implies there is something inherently sinister in lobbying when Jews do it."[12]
Carol Moore 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Go ahead, add it to the mediation if you like.
The hard question is how to distinguish between ordinary political opposition and "antisemitism". That's a debated question, and we have cites on both sides. We can't decide where the line is for Wikipedia; that would be original research. All we can do is provide "who said what" information, maybe identify the major players, but not conclude anything from it. Hence "allegations of antisemitism". --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I find this extremely ironic. It was jgui, Catchpole, and Carolmooredc who insisted that the article have an "Antisemitic". section. Here jgui creates it,[21] and when I and Jaakobou revert it as Original Research,[22], we are in turn reverted by both Catchpole[23] and Carolemooredc.[24] I and others remove it again several times[25][26] but Carolmooredc and Catchpole are rather insistent on those headers[27][28][29][30] Perhaps you and your team need to regroup, and work on a co-ordinated game plan. As for your claim that people who discuss the term "Jewish lobby" are "primary sources", that's utter nonsense. People who use the term "Jewish lobby" are primary sources; people who discuss it are secondary sources. Finally, regarding your insistence that it's important to "important to distinguish between the writers who actually writers who actually found specific instances of antisemitic activity directly connected to the term "Jewish lobby" and those who are merely expressing their own opinions on the subject", that's more odd original research. We cite what reliable sources say, we don't investigate their claims ourselves. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
John makes a narrow point of renaming the section "allegations of antisemitism."
As for long ago arguments on what sections to have and what to call them, insights in how wikipedia works and opinions on how best to present articles evolve.
Since the one specific thing John suggests now is renaming the section, the other points should be discussed as they become relevant. I guess I could bring to mediation. Note that no one has replied to disagree with the point I make about the Australian quote. Carolmooredc {talk}
(after edit conflict) "People who use the term 'Jewish lobby' are primary sources; people who discuss it are secondary sources". That's an amusing view, and resembles the discredited argument from the closed "neologism" discussion. In reality, sources are only secondary sources if they cite verifiable primary sources. Which is a problem here. A vague accusation is not a secondary source. --John Nagle (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
While I usually avoid this argument, I did just look again at the relevant section and what John says makes wiki sense of something that I just found problematic at a gut level before. I don't mind having several of those opinions/allegations listed, just as long as we make it clear that is what they are. Carol Moore 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Wait, "Antisemitic usage" is original research, but "Allegations of antisemitism" is not? I'd love to hear an explanation of that. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
John, "sources are only secondary sources if they cite verifiable primary sources." That's an amusing view, and resembles the discredited argument from the closed "neologism" discussion. In reality, sources are primary sources if they simply use the term, and editors can't use their own special pleading to spuriously reject reliable sources. Which is a problem here. An invented policy is irrelevant to this page, and any other. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody other than Jayjg (talk · contribs) think the above makes any sense? --John Nagle (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I really don't totally comprehend the argument which is between you two. How about I ask for a third unbiased opinion?? :-) Carol Moore 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Every day I have pleasantly sat and read the back & forth comments on this issue, quite amazed that so much time could be spent on it. I support Jayjg's's position. I believe I recall when a user made the section title change, dropping the 'accusations of' (it was neither of you three) - I agreed with the change then, and the rationale that the user brought forth: a simple perusal of the internet can glean many antisemitic uses of the term Jewish Lobby, and the fact that authors, writers, historians or whomever have drawn attention to this is enough to justify the section title on wiki standards; these citations are secondary sources, not 'partisan primary sources' (which sounds a tad POV-laced a statement). To comment that it is merely an accusation and not a fact is itself a POV or original research. I also think quotes from sources such as the Sydney Herald or an arguably iconic Holocaust survivor are certainly wiki-allowable. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What I find interesting is your justification for not using "accusations": a simple perusal of the internet can glean many antisemitic uses of the term Jewish Lobby, and the fact that authors, writers, historians or whomever have drawn attention to this is enough to justify the section title on wiki standards;. Does that mean you would support a section on how Israel Lobby and Jewish Lobby are used interchangeably based on the fact that a simple perusal of the internet can glean many authors, writers, mainstream news sources, etc. use them interchangeably? (One of those projects that remains low on my list of priorities.) Carol Moore 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
What I am saying is that it is verifiable that, in the vernacular of some, Jewish Lobby is a sinister term with antisemitic implications, and the press has reported various academics and journalists that have picked up on it. It isn't therefore an 'accusation' - it just is. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<----I have put up this disbate at the Reliable sources noticeboard here. Carol Moore 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok, I moved it over to WP:OR noticeboard where it belongs. Carol Moore 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Only Response: ok, allow me to point out the obvious. the 'Jewish Lobby' is in fact a conspiracy theory, not an established fact. there is no actual thing to be pointed to, and no academic consensus on the existence or non-existence of this entity. the only way secondary vs primary sourcing comes into this is in the use of partisan positions: sources which present partisan opinions (either by making claims about a Jewish Lobby, or by refuting claims made by others) are primary sources - they are trying to establish a point and convince others that point is true. sources which collect claims from both sides and compare them or analyze them are secondary. there may be a gray area where a someone collects claims from both sides, analyzes them, and comes to a conclusion, but generally that can be handled: sources that decide one side is wrong are primary, while sources that lay out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and allow readers to draw their own conclusion are secondary. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's too early in the morning for me to figure out if that makes any more sense to me or how that would apply to this article. Any thoughts? Carol Moore 12:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
This Only Response bolsters Jayjg's point of view: the sources in the article are secondary, and they are sources (journalists, academics, organizations) writing about the antisemitic use of the term Jewish Lobby. Hopefully this will end the confusion, and the info in the article can stand. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Which sources actually cite antisemitic use of the term, and which merely allege that such use exists? Address the actual references, please. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That writers (sources) have come to a conclusion that there exists a belief in a segment of the popoulation that the term Jewish Lobby can be an antisemitic one is evident from all of the references in that section. Are you stating that you think this is merely an allegation that some folks use the term in this way? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is Over, but Maybe We've Learned Better Habits

Notice here. Better habits include only making a couple changes at a time, not doing massive reverts under guise of just one revert entry (even if you are an administrator), long drawn out debates without seeking 3rd opinions or other wp:dispute resolution methods. Carol Moore 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hopefully everybody has. I just read this article for the first time. It actually looks pretty good. Not to exaggerate but I read literally 20 different political magazines and journals from the far right to the far left in several different languages and I think this is the best treatment of this issue I have ever seen. It cites all sides. Woven through the text are quotes from people I agree and disagree with and that's a good sign. Kudos to the previous editors. I guess your struggles did bear fruit.aharon42 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Like I say a bunch of time, it still could use WP:RS on how Jewish Lobby and Israel lobby are often used interchangeably and a definitive statement that Jewish Lobby is widely used in a non-antisemitic way. While I'm working on higher priority projects I'm saving the most promising google alerts though whether I'll ever get around to looking at them heavens only knows. Probably only if someone does something with the article that ticks me off and gets the competitive adrenaline going again. :-) Carol Moore 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You are correct. Jewish lobby can be used in a neutral or even positive descriptive way and also in a jew-hating way. It depends on the context and the tone.This should be noted in the article. aharon42 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the lead per WP:lead

Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content says words and phrases commonly used interchangeably with other words and phrases can be mentioned in the lead. The example they give is: Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ...

Therefore in this article it would be: "Jewish lobby (also called less accurately the Israel lobby or the Zionist lobby) is a term used to describe or allege organized Jewish influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, public policy, international relations, as well as business, international finance, the media, academia, and popular culture." There is more than adequate evidence that this is true in references and in many articles which have been cited in talk over the last couple years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for your claim that "Zionist lobby" and "Israel lobby" are less accurate terms for "Jewish lobby"? I'll be quite frank, I see this as little more than yet another attempt to allow the inclusion of material referring to the "Israel lobby" or "Zionist lobby", rather than an attempt to actually discuss the "Jewish lobby". Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this and the attached book might help; it certainly helped educate my NPOV. This too is highly informative and supportive for more recent periods. These are part of a reasonable basis to answer the question as well as a less-than-AGF collaborative response. For a broader comparative view, I should probably add these also:
  • Janice Terry. 2005. "U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Role of Lobbies and Special Interest Groups." Pluto Press. ISBN 0745322581.
  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. "Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy." Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-97532-0
  • Smith, Tony. 2000. "Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy." Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00294-6
  • Goldberg, David Howard. 1990. "Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American and Canadian Jews Lobby for Israel." Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26850-9
  • Ahrari, Mohammed E. 1987. "Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy." Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25412-5
  • Said, Abdul Aziz. 1981. "Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy." Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-90716-3
Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Thanks CasualObserver. Do you have any page numbers and quotes saying anything even vaguely like "Jewish Lobby also called Israel lobby or Zionist lobby".
  2. I have in the interim on other pages deal with the interchangeability issue and I think this has to be upgraded to policy: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.
  3. I can't find the discussion section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby but I do remember that this issue was not settled. So I remain convinced that these two references are sufficient for all relevant articles, though I will continue to look for better ones. (And I've got a huge backlog of google alerts yet to go through.) After I get a few more, my only question is what is the speediest way of dealing with this one issue of the lead for all Israel-lobby related pages, as I learn the ins and outs of dealing with dubious deletions on wikipedia.
  • Linguistics professor Hagit Borer asserts that the “Israel Lobby” is “also known as the Jewish Lobby, or as AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee)...” REF:Transcript of KPFK radio program Debating the Primacy of The Pro-Israel Lobby, The Debate Between James Petras and Norman Finkelstein, moderated by Hagit Borer, April 18, 2007.
  • Do Zionists Run America? by Allen Ruff. Review of James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States(Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006) 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." He adds: "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.
  • The Bard and Walt & Mearsheimer quotes admit that these phrases are used interchangeably, before saying why they should not be, so those also are relevant sources. I have no problem with saying in the lead that Jewish lobby may NOT be used accurately interchangeably with Israel lobby (since sometimes it is). (Similarly in Israel Lobby articles.) The lead is a good place to clear this up right off.
However, it would be helpful if the relevant quote from the second Bard statement could be included in the reference since it only infers, does not state, that he's talking about "Jewish lobby." ie Bard argues the term Israel lobby is more accurate, because it comprises both formal and informal elements (which includes public opinion), and "...because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews." REF:Bard, Mitchell. The Water's Edge and Beyond: Defining the Limits to Domestic Influence on United States Middle East Policy, Transaction publishers, 1991, p. 6. ISBN 088738286X
4. Finally Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content mentioned above can be modified by the need for references in controversial settings. However, something tells me that only a noted chemical expert (prefably nobel prize winning) is sufficent WP:RS to say Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is also known as lye or Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is also known as caustic soda. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_lobby/Archive_3&oldid=1037700703"