Jump to content

Talk:Washington Institute for Near East Policy/Archive 1

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

list of trustees

Adding alleged "list of trustees" (collected by dubious means) of mostly Jewish names is a classic well poisoning propaganda technique. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No dubious means. It came of the organization's form 990 see link below, which they report to the IRS. This is a proud organization, and the trustees are prominent members of society. It is publicly available on Guidestar http://www.guidestar.org/
Why are you ashamed of them? Why do you assume this is nefarious propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.165.240 (talk • contribs)
Please try no to break format on almost every page you touch and explain why do you insist on adding it here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to defend adding valid, relevant information to a page. Stop censoring my contributions, or I'll ship your resume to Google China.
It does not belong. See Poisoning the well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It belongs, and will remain on the page. See Censorship

It belongs. See Censorship

I don't believe so. Explain why. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the key individuals of the organization, ARE the organization. Right now the article says a lot about who is not in WINEP, such as "crude right wingers". This leads the curious to ask, "well, if they're not in, who is?" As mentioned before, this is a prominent group of individuals, and their names will ring a bell as benefactors of many charities, and leaders of many causes.

All the reader sees is a bunch of names. What do you mean, "their names will ring a bell"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


As you can see, I am beginning to link the names that have biographies, and write for those who don't. This is a very prestigious group.

Since the anon provided no answer, I am removing irrelevant list of trustees. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It is, of course, entirely nonsensical to stuff this page with a huge, unreadable list of non-notable people, so that the list devors 80% or so of the whole article. I have never seen this sort of idiocy on the Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Use common sense. Pecher Talk 13:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the controversy. Why not just add a link to the list of names? At the same time that I don't see the point of pasting a list of names longer than the article itself, I came here looking for just that, to see who has been involved in the instutite and how it has changed over the years. I disagree that the names will not ring a bell. As the article itself says, they are distinguished politicians, academicians, and policy makers that come from both sides of the political divide.
The source of that list is not a reputable source, rather it seems like some Jewish conspiracy website. The list in question doesn't show "who has been involved in the instutite and how it has changed over the years" - only a long list of scary Jewish names. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

As there seems to be no significant ongoing discussion here, I'm unprotecting this article. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NOR

I strongly object to attempts by certain editors to present WINEP as "a Jewish organization", especially basing on questionable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a "Jewish organization" but rather a "pro-Israel" one unless someone can find a reputable source on this. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Here in DC it is not considered a "Jewish" organization, but rather an important part of the Pro-Israel lobby. One cannot conflate these two since the pro-Israel lobby contains many non Jews. More precise would be to understand it as the arms length "think tank" of AIPAC.71.252.38.245 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Winep logo.jpg

Image:Winep logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WINEP and AIPAC

This is not controversial nor rare. Many lobbying groups, industry, ethnic, etc., set up arms length think tanks. One can see this by comparing boards of Trustees (not boards of advisors which don't do any fundraising and have little to no power within such organizations).
Since respected Jewish American publications such as the Forward, as well mainstream outlets in Israel such as Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post link AIPAC and WINEP, and also refer to WINEP as "pro-Israel" these facts need to be included and maintained in this article.
The issue of transparency, which must be part of wikipedia, is not the same the controversies over drawing conclusions. 71.252.38.245 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear George,
  There is a distinct difference between having individual members of the board of AIPAC found TWI, and AIPAC--as an organization--founding WINEP. Additionally, not all of the founding members of WINEP are affiliated with AIPAC.

Cobibgantz (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)cobibgantz

Policy Orientation

Added a new section on WINEP's policy orientation. The information sourced verifiable so please don't remove without prior discussion.

Colombo Man (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions and op-eds

I am doing my best to assume that some editors are editing in good faith. It seems that some are getting lost trying to depict the subject of the article in their own ways. I did my best to add my reasons in the summary but that was not good enough for some people. So here goes. One by one.

  1. Attempting to add "pro-Israel" and "AIPAC" everywhere and in every sentence almost is ridiculous. WINEP is not a wing of AIPAC, nor are they affiliated. There are some mutual members of both organizations--but that is very different and and is not the picture some editors are painting here. (I am personally familiar with one of the scholars, who by the way, is a senior official of the American Task Force on Palestine.)
  2. The sources are incredibly weak. Using pretty much every source that attempts to bash the organization all in the lead (while completely ignoring mainstream, reliable neutral sources) gives decisive WP:Undue weight to the article. In what other article do you If some of things were true, they would easily be found on such sources as the New York Times. (Per WP, reliable Internet sources are always preferred.) . And WINEP is not a "conservative" think tank.
  3. There are ELEVEN research areas on this site: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, North Africa, Palestinians, Persian Gulf States, Syria, and Turkey. Adding such phrases reduces their scholarship, and gives, again, a distorted picture of the subject of the article.
  4. The founders and scholars did a LOT of things before joining WINEP. Saying "largely" (a broad term) "AIPAC members" (most of them are not, by the way) totally singles that out, and gives it a distorted picture. Some of these people were academics, diplomats, government officials, military commanders, etc.
  5. The Walt-Mearsheimer passage is given way too much weight. I will shorten it.

--Shamir1 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed your bullets to numbered bullets so I can try to address them accordingly:
  1. I believe "pro-Israel" was added once, with a direct quote from the source. "AIPAC" was added three times—each time describing the previous role held by one of the three co-founders. If you had objected to the term alone, I'm sure you could have worked with the text to reduce the number of occurences to one (something like "AIPAC's president, vice president, and deputy director of research"). It was intended as a factually accurate description of the background of the three co-founders. Since when did being associated with AIPAC become tantamount to a slur??
  2. Incredibly weak? I replaced a handful of websites, that you yourself claimed were op-eds, with widely available (search their ISBNs), published works by notable historians and journalists (many have Wikipedia articles about them). That is the very definition of a reliable source. All are available in some form on the internet. And even if they weren't, widely published books are completely viable sources.
  3. I have no idea what you're referring to, or what page on their site you're referring to (links are helpful). If you're talking about what's listed in the list of "activities", it's a point by point copy of the list from their website, and almost a replica of what was there before. If you object to what they wrote on their own website, then you should email them. The version you reverted to instead contains a direct copyright violation from the source it cites on the issue.
  4. The "largely AIPAC board members" was taken directly from the source right after the phrase. To quote the source: "One Israel-oriented group that has had particular success in the Washington policy world is the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy (WINEP) founded in 1985 as a pro-Israel but not specifically Jewish think tank. Its founders were largely AIPAC board members led by Lawrence Weinburg of Los Angeles." (emphasis mine) We can certainly use quotation marks if you prefer that.
  5. I don't know what passage you're referring to, but the common thing to do here is to offer both points of view, properly cited to reliable sources—not to blindly remove one you disagree with on a personal level.
I have several concerns here. The most obvious being that you've blindly removed 40% of an article that had drastic improvements, and twice as many sources—reliable sources which replaced those which you dubbed "op-eds". I'm further concerned with your personal connection to the subject ("I am personally familiar with one of the scholars"), which likely means you shouldn't be editing this article at all. Additionally, I reverted an anonymous IP editor's blanking, which I view as blatant vandalism (given the pattern of removal, and a nonsense edit summary complaining about a source I had already removed), but after seeing you make almost the same edit, I realize that it may have been you using an IP address as a sock puppet to avoid 3RR. I've filed a request to have the issue investigated. ← George talk 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Never did I say an association with AIPAC is tantamount to a slur. What I did say was that the sources used were largely ones that bashed WINEP. (And yes, some were op-eds--an issue you have for some reason difficulty swallowing.) I do see, however, that some of these were rightfully removed. And when I say Internet, I mean reliable mainstream internet sources. Not random ones. People can say anything. It should be published to the like of something like the New York Times. I also said that the accusations and verbatim quotations taken from selected sources (not from the organization itself or mainstream sources--as is normally done) that you put (of all places) in the first sentences of the lead gives a very distorted picture of the organization. It's also inaccurate.
  2. Yes. Incredibly weak. Cherry-picking books and random opinionated articles on the net is not strong.
  3. What I'm referring to is the pro-Israel label listed ubiquitously (and its indirect but pretty obvious "hints"). It is not a single-issue think tank. It deals with several areas of the Middle East.
  4. This is much more of historical content. This book focuses on its relationship to American Jewry (a mainstream source would not introduce it this way), and mentions that this is the way it was founded in 1985. This does not belong in the lead. I know you are a more experienced editor than that. On the next quotation, we're not adding a quotation in the lead from an Internet article published over twenty years ago.
  5. Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. I will write it again: I will shorten it. I do NOT appreciate your accusation that I "blindly remove one you disagree with on a personal level." I do not edit out of bias. George, I think you have misunderstood me for a very long time. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Did you even read the version after my changes? I specifically removed the sources you said you thought were op-eds (the Salon article), and replaced them with books. Books written by historians or journalists that are published by major publishing houses and widely distributed are not self-published. You removed internet-based articles from the Asia Times, Le Monde, and MERIP. You criticize not citing "the organization itself", which would be a clear violation of using a self-published sourced. You argue that the reliable sources cited paint an "inaccurate" picture, when WP:V specifically states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
  2. I didn't cherry-pick anything; most reliable sources discussing WINEP's formation in 1985 mention AIPAC. That's a fact. I added published books that have been distributed throughout the world, and removed several of the "articles on the net" that you criticized from the article.
  3. I still have absolutely no idea what list you're talking about. I didn't add any list.
  4. Again, most sources discussion WINEP's foundation mention AIPAC. Of the books I found on the subject, every single one mentioned AIPAC. Unless you have some counter-source to offer up, your argument on the subject holds little water. I didn't add the quote; it was already there, in the article, miscited. I pointed it to the correct source for the quotation. The sentence was discussing the foundation of WINEP, so the fact that it's 20 years old isn't a fault, but a benefit, discussion the aims of the group close to when it was formed.
  5. Shorten what? I asked what you were referring to, and you again mention "it" without telling me what "it" is. You performed a full revert, despite numerous improvements to the article's formating, readability, and grammar, completely unrelated to your disagreement on the sources. That is a blind revert. You claim not to edit out of bias while saying that you're "personally familiar" with one of the scholars at WINEP. That is a clear conflict of interests. And I don't know what you mean by misunderstanding you for "a very long time", as this dispute appears to be not even 24 hours old. ← George talk 08:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Yes I did read your changes. Did you read what I wrote? Okay, I'll write it again: I do see, however, that some of these were rightfully removed. I was just explaining my position beforehand.
  2. I am dubious that you did not cherry-pick anything. It seems as if someone was adamant on searching for "WINEP pro-Israel" or "WINEP AIPAC" rather than just "WINEP." Saying founded as "a pro-Israel alternative" not only makes it seem like it is what the founders called themselves, but it goes directly against what the founders and the current people involved say about their work.
  3. ?...
  4. The fact is that the source's are selection, usually not mainstream, and most of them are assertion. Such material (if encyclopedic) is not made for the lead but rather in sections of the article. Many of these very un-notable assertions are made by opinionated sources meant to bash WINEP such as Joshua Frank of the (self-proclaimed) radical left-wing CounterPunch or MERIP. Few, if any, neutral mainstream ones.
  5. Shorten what? Okay so again some parts of what I clearly wrote were for some reason skipped over. So I will write it again: The Walt-Mearsheimer passage is given way too much weight. I will shorten it. I thought that was clear; sorry if it wasn't.
Yes I reverted. I refuse to allow blatant bias litter an article. An agenda seems pretty clear. If you want to make improvements based on readability and such then feel free to do so. But adding so much assertion from a selection of sources is not fair, not encyclopedic, and inaccurate. The scholars of this organization are cited by numerous newspapers.
Lastly, George, give me some credit. When I said I was personally familiar with one of them, I carefully placed that in parentheses. If I felt it is was truly relevant I would not have done so. Saying that this is "proof" that I edit out of bias is not a very smart argument. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Ok, so then we have a dispute on whether or not the sources are reliable I take it?
  2. Save your dubiousness. Have you done any research on this group from reliable sources? If so, what are your sources that discuss the founding of the group? Or are you just operating based on personal belief? I searched Google Books for 'WINEP 1985', 'WINEP founded', and similar terms, to find sources about the founding of the group. Here are excerpts from the first set of results from that search (note: they are the first results from the search; nothing cherry-picked about it):
    • Jews and the American public square: debating religion and republic By Alan Mittleman, Robert Licht, Jonathan D. Sarna: "One Israel-oriented group that has had particular success in the Washington policy world is the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy (WINEP) founded in 1985 as a pro-Israel but not specifically Jewish think tank. Its founders were largely AIPAC board members led by Lawrence Weinburg of Los Angeles."
    • DOMESTIC SOURCES OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLI, THE: INSIGHTS AND EVIDENCE By Eugene R. Wittkopf, James M. McCormick: "The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks that play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985 , when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP."
    • The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy By John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: "Recognizing the need for a prominent but seemingly 'objective' voice in the policy arena surrounding Israel, former AIPAC president Larry Weinberg; his wife, Barbi Weinberg; AIPAC's vice president; and AIPAC deputy director of research Martin Indyk founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985."
    • Contending visions of the Middle East: the history and politics of Orientalism By Zachary Lockman: "By contrast, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), founded in 1985, quickly achieved a much higher profile and much greater influence... WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Its founding director, Martin Indyk, had previously worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), founded in 1946..."
  3. You mentioned a list; I don't know what list you meant.
  4. Being mainstream is a requirement of newspaper articles, not published, widely-distributed books by scholars. The publishers in this case were mainstream. And if you're so interested in finding news articles about the founding of WINEP, by all means do so (hint: most of them also connect the group with AIPAC, and/or describe it as pro-Israel; some of them were the very sources you objected to).
  5. I didn't write that passage, nor did I add it, so your objection is irrelevant with regards to this discussion (I didn't revert the change you made to the criticism section). It was there well before my changes, and was in the previous version you edited. You certainly could have edited it without mass reverting.
Relevant or not, I question if you're capable of editing this article with a level head, or if a personal conflict of interest may skew your opinion on the subject. ← George talk 01:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
For interested editors, Shamir1's preferred version can be seen here, and my preferred version can be seen here. The key points of dispute are the references used at the end of the article, and the content of the lead based on those sources. If it's easier to view in diff form, the diff can be viewed here. ← George talk 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Question all you want, you have no case.

Yes I have done very much research. Most newspapers just quote them as "experts," asking them for further insight on a topic (without the "conservative" or any label you first included in the lead. They are often cited for analysis on a variety of topics. Articles written by their scholars are ubiquitous. This is all without pro-Israel label. If there is something like this (on a specific view) it would go in the body of the article, not the lead.

  1. You mentioned books. Boasting them each as the first ones that pop up in a Google search. You also just make a Google search as some sort of source in itself to your argument. Let's save us both some time here. Neither of those matter. Not one bit. When I type the word "Jew", the second link (after WP) on Google is Jew Watch. Does that it make it reliable? Does it make it a mainstream source on Jews? I'm not trying to compare the two. What I'm doing (and I have a feeling you'll skip over this anyway) is making a point to debunk some baseless claim about the order of Google results and other nonsense.
  2. Now onto the books. I will repeat that un-notable sources that are just out to bash WINEP making largely assertion have no place in the lead, let alone in the article. They are not useful descriptions. The Wittkopf and James book has (as far as I've seen) not been reviewed by anyone. I don't see a single review.
  3. The Walt-Mearsheimer paper. Praised by a few, criticized by a much larger group--pro-Arab and pro-Israel alike (mostly for the paper's quality, what critics see as insufficient research, and a particularly broad and inclusive definition of the lobby)-- are dealing with a different picture. They are trying to prove that what they call "the lobby" (which, according to the authors, is not what most people consider to be a lobby but rather anyone who likes Israel). What they are argue, but do not verify, is that Israel-lovers teamed up at WINEP, among other places to influence policy. Dennis Ross, a former Clinton government official and a scholar at WINEP, has publicly disputed them. That is fine. I inserted a quotation from them, because they are academics and political scientists. (I'm wondering how on earth I did that without a level head?) Either way, they undoubtedly have an agenda, it is an opinionated piece, that is NOT meant to be used to describe an organization.
  4. You make the claim Let me be clear. I opposed describing it with newspaper op-eds, not newspapers in general. I encouraged the latter. --Shamir1 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a warped view of what defines a reliable source.
  1. I certainly "boasted" no such thing. You accused me of cherry-picking; I showed you that I merely took the top results from a search. Your example is meaningless, as Google Books indexes books, many of which are reliable sources, while Google itself indexes websites, most of which are not reliable sources.
  2. You continue to make the same claim, and continue to fail to provide counter sources.
  3. The only unique thing that Mearsheimer is cited for in the lead is Barbi Weinburg being a co-founder of WINEP. I didn't view that as particularly controversial.
  4. So newspapers are somehow better than books, when they say the exact same thing? ← George talk 07:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you are adamant on using books. You defend yourself from cherry-picking by saying you "merely took the top results from a search." News flash: that doesn't change anything. I don't know where you're getting the idea that an opinion stated in a book is any more reliable than that in a website. In any case, Internet sources are always preferred. This isn't about "counter" sources. It's about depicted a real factual depiction of the subject based off of mainstream sources--not cherry-picked opinionated ones that are mostly out to bash the group.
In any case, the Walt-Mearsheimer paper is not supposed to be used as a face-value source. The only thing it sources is the view of the authors.
Maybe your selected op-eds from newspapers "say the same exact thing," but that is hearsay. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not "adamant" at all, and have found articles from the New York Times, TIME magazine, and the Washington Post which also describe the group as "pro-Israel" and related to AIPAC, but I also don't understand why you would oppose every book that mentions the institute. None of these books appear to be statements of opinion, with the possible exception of Walt-Mearsheimer. What backs up your claim that "internet sources are always preferred"? I'd like to see a quote from Wikipedia policy that states that, as it's certainly new to me. I asked you for sources that discuss the group which you consider mainstream, but you refuse to provide any. Am I supposed to believe you're doing anything other than stonewalling here? ← George talk 08:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
George, George, George. The un-mainstream-ness (yes, I know, not a word) of your sources is NOT contingent upon sources that I find. You're giving off an idea like it's one way or the other. I critiqued the books you used as sources and how you used them (which, ironically, wasn't very "level") but that did not have to do with using EVERY source or ANYTHING that mentions WINEP. (Every time you make new baseless charge...) --Shamir1 (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how about the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, which states: "AIPAC also has an active relationship with various elements of the executive branch of government. In this regard, in 1985 it set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli 'think tank,' that essentially served as a proxy." Or do you just consider any source that says something you don't like to be "opinionated"? ← George talk 09:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. This may continue for some time, and I don't want to intrude but have been watching the edits fly. My pov tends to feel most warm and fuzzy with the set of edits that provides the greatest understanding of the subject matter (for the generally-poorly-informed reader) within the broader context of the whole I/P conflict. As such, and when the time is more appropriate, I will tend to side with the one that provides that. After all, this is an encyclopedia and therefore should provide that type of content. Limiting content with red tape seems insufficiently inclusionist to provide the sought-for NPOV, though this obviously is hotly debated. Regards and enjoy, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point arguing with you. You do not seem to be able to edit or discuss with a level and have drawn baseless conclusions from the beginning through the end. I critiqued specific sources as inapt, never once saying it was because I "didn't like it." An article should not be introduced by descriptions and POV assertions by sources that are not bound by neutrality. The bottom line is a POV source cannot be used as an NPOV source. But there is no point in telling you this. --Shamir1 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So your claim then is that any source which describes this group as either (a) pro-Israel, or (b) founded by members of AIPAC, is inherently non-neutral, and therefore unreliable? Even the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World? ← George talk 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I posted a request for comment on whether or not the sources I've listed here are reliable over at the reliable sources noticeboard, and whether or not Shamir1's claim that "internet sources are always preferred" holds any water. My query received the following, well explained response:

"Reliable sources include peer reviewed journal articles, books published by academic publishers, newspaper article published by commercial for profit newspapers without explicit advocacy editorial policies, books published by commercial for-profit publishers without explicit advocacy editorial politicies, various other sources. Internet sources which meet the criteria of the first four sources I listed are fine, they are not preferred or unpreferred: they are of equal reliability. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World is only a Reliable Source if articles are signed individually by experts in the field. Otherwise it should be considered a Tertiary source. TIME is reliable for that statement. Lockman is published by Cambridge University Press, an academic publisher, it is reliable for the statement given. Wittkopf is published by Rowmanlittlefield, a "highly respected publisher of academic and trade books in the social sciences and the humanities", Wittkopf is reliable for the reference given. Frank is published by "Common Courage Press" which "often publishes books that larger houses deem too controversial," Common Courage does not take unsolicited manuscripts (a sign they are commercially publishing), they publish books of ideas (treat as commercial non-academic. Their mission is to publish ideas, so treat as non polemic). Frank is RS for the statement given. Mearsheimer is published by FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX a commercial non academic imprint of Macmillan. Mearsheimer is reliable for the statement given. Multiple RS support the contention that AIPAC founded WINEP in 1985. Next time please supply full citations for works, especially including the publisher." - Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully that helps this discussion. ← George talk 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Formation and funding

This recent addition seems out of place.

  1. The first paragraph is entirely redundant with information already presented with greater concision in the first paragraph of the entry, save for identifying Martin Indyk as "a Democrat" via a citation that in does not demonstrate a partisan affiliation. The cited article mentions that Indyk campaigned for Sen. Barack Obama for president in 2008. That demonstrates only that Indyk campaigned for Obama, not that he is a Democrat, just as a similar citation might show that Sen. Joseph Lieberman campaigned for Sen. John McCain for president in 2008, not that Lieberman is a Republican.
  2. Relevance is also at issue here, since Indyk is not an elected official, nor a currently serving appointed official, and according to the article and the Indyk biographical entry was neither when he founded the Institute. Even if Indyk's party membership could be demonstrated, it would be out of place in this context.
  3. The "funding" section is out of date -- nearly five years old.
  4. The "funding" paragraph also repeats the practice referred to above of cherrypicking Jewish-sounding names, most of which are not linked to other entries. This fails basic NPOV tests as a clear example of introducing bias through selective listing. Relevance is also at issue on this listing of names.
  5. This section contains numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, which would seem to indicate a lack of editorial care on the part of the user who added this section.

This section seems overwhelmingly noncompliant with Wikipedia standards, and as such must be a strong candidate for removal. ArrScott (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi ArrScott. Thaks for the feedback.
  1. Good point; I've removed the mention of him being a democrat and reworded this sentence. It still matches closely with the lead, but hopefully in the future it will expand to include more detail.
  2. See #1.
  3. I don't think we have any more recent or accurate data.
  4. The notable donors list of names were the exact ones used in the source. I don't know what makes a name "Jewish-sounding", but the U.S. News and World Report article highlighted them as notable donors, and I doubt that they would "cherry-pick" those names for how they sound.
  5. If you see spelling or grammar mistakes, feel free to correct them.
Care to tell us which "Wikipedia standards" it's "overwhelmingly noncompliant" with? ← George talk 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about whatever disagreement there is here (or if there is one), but as the person who added the US News source I did not add the selected list of funders for minor reasons 1) length reasons, 2) that it may possibly be outdated. We do clearly say that it is from 2005, although I do not know which of the hundreds names are still funding and/or are notable. I do not, however, care too much about this issue; was just giving my thoughts. Also, Walt and Mearsheimer's article cannot be used as anything other than the opinions of the authors. The authors also state this loose cabal of networks is the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, yet we cannot add that in the war in Iraq article for obvious reasons. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the reliable sources noticeboard: "Mearsheimer is published by FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX a commercial non academic imprint of Macmillan. Mearsheimer is reliable for the statement... that AIPAC founded WINEP in 1985." Any of the details on this statement can be cited to multiple reliable sources. The proper thing to do if you feel that any of it needs better or additional sourcing is to tag it using {{fact}}, not remove it.
You did not address the point I made. Walt and Mearsheimer are not recording facts, they are not making any sort of encyclopedic chronology, etc. They are publishing their own opinions (which in this case is to bash the very subject of the article we are editing). They are published by that publisher because the two are academics. As I stated earlier, the authors also state that this cabal of networks was the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, yet we cannot use that at face-value. If there is a neutral reliable source for this, it must be cited to that. I don't see a problem with this anyway since the newspaper sources I am reading list Indyk as the founder. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a nonsensical argument, and you're also removing a statement cited to The Washington Post. I'm not citing Walt and Mearsheimer for their opinions, I'm citing them for who founded WINEP, and when they did it - something I don't find contentious. If you do, kindly follow Wikipedia policy and identify which part of the statements you think need additional sources using the {{fact}} tag; I will be happy to go through and add them. I can easily find multiple, reliable sources to support any part of the two sentences you removed, but I don't want a sentence in the lead with twenty citations (per WP:LEAD), so you merely need to identify what you think needs additional references. Edit warring isn't helpful. ← George talk 09:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Walt and Mearsheimer cannot be cited for that claim. They have an agenda--there are not describing the formation of an organization as neutral observers--they are trying to make a link (in their own words) between two organizations and/or ideas. These are all POV sources. You keep saying you can find sources. Then add them. Stop using sources that only attempt to bash the organization in the lead. That fits purely under the definition of POV. The sources I read note Indyk as the founder--I have no clue why you have a problem with that. Secondly, you can't use what they are "often described as" with your sources in the very first sentence. That's cherry-picking, and undue. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me begin by saying that you've both contributed tremendously to the quality of this article. We need to have both of your inputs on this page. Furthermore, you clearly both have valid points. I believe Shamir1 is correct about Walk and Mearsheimer regarding their opinion. For example, in George's latest update, he quotes them as referring to the Insitute as "part of the core." This is clearly the opinion of the authors, and I do not believe they can be considered neutral.
However, it was wholly inappropriate to revert the entire edit. As George pointed out, your revert included removing facts cited in the Washington Post, certainly a NPOV by any reasonable standard. Furthermore, George is correct regarding the facts he cited from Walt and Mearsheimer. While their opinions are certainly not welcome on this page, they are still published academics, and quoting facts (such as who founded the Institute) is perfectly appropriate for the page.
It seems like there should be a happy middle ground between the both of you. George, your last edit definitely included at least some opinions from a non-NPOV source, without labeling them as such. Shamir1, you reverted perfectly legitimate edits. Just because part of the article is non-NPOV, you should be reverting good and helpful edits. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
I propose that we restore George's last edit, and Shamir1 should mark text that needs citation or (selectively) remove opinion. The fact is that you've both been contributing tremendously to this article. We really ought to find a way to have both of your edits. Metromoxie (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I already went through the hassle of filing a WP:RSN request on that source, and it was found to be reliable for the statement. There are multiple, reliable sources that support the statement, but I don't want to fill the sentence with twenty citations (per WP:LEAD), and Shamir1 has refused to identify what needs additional sourcing. For now I've replaced that source with one that I doubt anyone can question the neutrality of (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World). I've had to change the sentence to what that source actually said - it says that AIPAC founded WINEP, but doesn't identify the specific people from AIPAC who did - but it should be good enough. ← George talk 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the "often described as being pro-Israel", that too can be cited to almost every major newspaper in the world that talks about the institute. But I don't want to have to include 20 sources that describe the group as "pro-Israel" just to make a WP:POINT. Suggestions for how to handle that? ← George talk 01:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

George, the fact is not every issue they deal with regards Israel. Adding "pro-Israel" (with no source) directly in the very first sentence is undue and gives a false picture of the organization. Regardless, I myself used the Time source and added it to Background. There is also a difference between an organization founding another organization and a member or former member of an organization founded an organization. I appreciate Metromoxie's input, although I do think he misunderstood me a bit. As far as I know I kept the Washington Post source, however, I put it in Background, and also added a bit about the context (given the time period and WINEP's activities at the time). I also think he got the wrong idea about how I feel about using the Walt and Mearsheimer source. I have pointed out these two professors have an agenda, and their introduction and description of this organization will reflect that. I have noted throughout this discussion that these two men are academics. When their point is made, it must be cited to them and stated that it is the POV of those authors. Please note, Metromoxie, I kept that. In criticism, I included the authors' conclusion about WINEP. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source (Lockman, which was approved at the reliable sources noticeboard) for the "pro-Israel" label. ← George talk 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
George, I already kept that in my edit about WINEP's founding, when they were largely focused on Arab-Israeli relations. That is not what they call themselves and it cannot be the first sentence in the lead. They deal with several topics that have nothing to do with Israel. Also, George has added labels like "partisan" which are not from the Post, and has re-inserted information from op-eds--all from those intending to bash WINEP, and all in the lead. This is a blatant violation of NPOV. If we describe their activities, we don't need to compare them to AIPAC. We are writing an encyclopedia article, not Walt-Mearsheimer's paper. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It's becoming quickly apparent that your only interest here is to edit war.
  • Apparently you haven't read the Washington Post source, which states that Indyk was "disgruntled by its strong partisan image".
  • What a group calls themselves has little bearing on what the majority of the world call them.
  • I haven't cited a single op-ed that I'm aware of. Please back up accusations with diffs. ← George talk 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Indyk's reasoning for its creation belongs necessarily in the lede. I've moved that to the background section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Good edits, Ricky81682. The article was pretty top-heavy, mostly because we were trying to shoehorn paragraphs into the lead as summaries of each section, but those sections were smaller than their lead counterparts. Accordingly, the first paragraph discussed mostly history, and I think moving much of that to the history section isn't a bad idea. One comment - you changed the second sentence to "It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985, but the institute's mission statement states..." Since AIPAC isn't given any context here, I don't know if the term "but" makes any sense. If a reader is unaware of AIPAC's "partisan image", the mission statement doesn't necessarily conflict with the first part of the sentence. I would suggest changing it to either "It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985, but, in contrast to AIPAC's partisan image, the institute's mission statement states that..." or split it into two sentences: "It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985. The institute's mission statement states that..." ← George talk 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. I'm more interested in an odd point that the Mittleman book here mentions: pro-Israel but not necessarily Jewish and nonprofit research center rather than advocacy organization. That might be better wording. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the first because it makes the statements flow better, but it's also more contentious, so I'm going to think about it a bit more before I change it. I noticed the same statement (not necessarily Jewish). I think it's fine to add that somewhere, I just wasn't sure where. I wouldn't use the term "advocacy organization", unless there's some good sourcing for it. Calling it a nonprofit research center shouldn't be controversial, though we should still mention what some consider to be its advocacy activities (attempting to influence the media and the executive branch I assume) - with proper sources, of course. ← George talk 15:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Went ahead and made the edit as suggested. Still not completely happy with the wording, but it's a step forward at least. ← George talk 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholars, board members, etc.

First of all, WP:BLP reigns and so names without sources are not staying. Second, I wonder if anyone would have a problem with separate sections for Board members and for scholars. Something more in line with Cato_Institute#Notable_associates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea. ← George talk 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TWI?

I've changed the lead sentence, which used to list the acronyms for the institute as "(TWI; known informally as WINEP)", to instead just say "(WINEP)". A Google search for WINEP "washington institute" returns 67,200 results, while a search for TWI "washington institute" returns only 383 results—many of which are mirrors of this article—indicating that the acronym TWI is rarely used, while WINEP is used 200 times more often. ← George talk 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Founder

We use two contradictory sources to describe the founding. Most sources say it was founded by Indyk, including the Post. But then in a lead we use source to say it was founded by AIPAC.--Shamir1 (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Several sources say it was AIPAC in the generic sense. Some sources name one of the founders, some two, and some three. It's no different than attributing decisions by the U.S. President to the country (e.g., President Bush declared war vs. The United States declared war). ← George talk 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
False. Indyk is not and never was the head of AIPAC, as your analogy seems to suggest. Why use some sources only to state what you want it to? --Shamir1 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Did I say Indyk was the head of AIPAC? No. I said that several sources identify the head of AIPAC, who was not Indyk, as one of the co-founders of hte group. It has nothing to do with what I want, it has to do with how reliable sources describe the group. ← George talk 10:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Which head? Why don't you identify who? Even if that were true, that does not mean that AIPAC founded it. Even the sources you want to cite for other citations say it was Indyk who founded the research center. We should use what most say. A number of major newspapers, [4][5][6][7] and Martin Indyk himself say he was the one who founded it. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Larry Weinberg, his wife Barbi, and Martin Indyk are identified by various sources as founding or co-founding WINEP. ← George talk 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay... Does that equal AIPAC? --Shamir1 (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That depends on the level of detail you're using to describe it. Did the United States attacked Iraq? Not exactly - the United States Congress authorized the President of the United States to order the United States Armed Forced to attack Iraq. But when writing it, papers just write that the United States attacked Iraq for brevity. ← George talk 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Israel?

(I'll help Shamir1 by starting this discussion section.)

So the question is whether WINEP is considered "pro-Israel". I would contend that the term "pro-Israel" is used extremely often when describing the group - to the point the two are nearly synonymous. Many, reliable sources (not only limited to the three cited in the lead) describe it as such. I'll let Shamir1 describe why he feels the term is inaccurate. ← George talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very untrue. That may be the case when that is what you are searching for (as seems the case), especially considering you have used opinionated sources not bound by rules of neutrality, but the vast majority of sources do not use that label, instead just citing the scholar quoted as an expert.
And the question is not whether WINEP is considered pro-Israel. It is that is inappropriate to use without citing it as an opinion of a source and extremely inappropriate to use as the very first word to describe the group. What exactly is "pro-Israel"? WINEP is NOT an advocacy group, nor is it a single-issue organization.
Also, I gave an example of another organization (WRMEA) that has its policy orientation in the lead. 1) this group, on the other hand, is single-issue, 2) it doesn't use a label, but rather a description, 3) it cites the source as its opinion, 4) it is not in the very first sentence. --Shamir1 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you've decided to join the discussion. I was searching for information on WINEP - nothing more, nothing less - and taking an accusatory tone isn't appreciated. I've passed the sources you've described as "opinionated" by the reliable sources noticeboard, and they were found to be reliable for the statements cited to them.
You're correct that it doesn't matter if WINEP is pro-Israel or not, but I don't see the relevance of whether they are an advocacy group; being pro-Israel is not contingent on being an advocacy group. What matters is how reliable sources describe them. The group is often described as being "pro-Israel" by reliable sources, so I see no reason not to include it.
I'm unfamiliar with WRMEA, but if their article is FA quality I'd be interested in looking at it to get some ideas how to best describe this group. In the meantime, I'm hopeful that we can discuss the matter further and achieve consensus here on the talk page before changing the article or starting up another edit war. I'd encourage you to achieve consensus prior to making reverts, and you may want to look into dispute resolution for ideas on how to request additional commentary, if that might be helpful. It's safe to say that the administrator who stopped by earlier, Ricky81682, can be considered a third opinion on describing the group as "pro-Israel", based on their comments here and changes to the article, so we can probably move on to an RfC. ← George talk 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it right for the Brookings Institution to be immediately labeled "pro-healthcare?" George, please cease this edit war. WINEP IS NOT A SINGLE-ISSUE THINK TANK. What does "pro-Israel" have to do with its thousands of articles and scholars? With its board of advisors? With the hundreds of articles in major newspapers written by their scholars or just quoting that have nothing to do with Israel at all? For many groups, it makes perfect sense to include "pro-Israel" as the very fist word. These are advocacy organizations. But this here is a label, describing a group's policy orientation. And it is not a broad, inclusive, and/or descriptive label. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin too could be described as "pro-Israel," yet the two have different views on Israel and the Middle East despite both being described with this term. Same with the Zionist Organization of America and Americans for Peace Now. The point I'm trying to make here is such a un-descriptive, matter-of-opinion type of label cannot and should not be in the lead this way. You put it in the first sentence and it sends the wrong message. It distorts the picture of this institution, which has a much broader agenda. I did not remove it (as you consistently seem to suggest). I put it in the appropriate section.
You cited a source that is trying to prove a point and juxtaposes WINEP's activities with AIPAC's. We can use facts, but we do not need THEIR comparison. That comparison is loaded. We must only use plain facts; we are not writing an editorial. This would be at odds with WP:NPOV. Another loaded touch is the use of the word "but" instead of "and" in the lead--inferring that they are in some way not able fulfill their mission statement.
The Walt and Mearsheimer piece is an opinion piece. Accused of "inventing historical facts" by the own sources they cite, they cannot be put in any other section but where they clearly belong, as "criticism." --Shamir1 (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This long term edit warring, performing the same revert weeks apart, for months on end, is getting to be tedious. I highly suggest you self-revert, and make an honest attempt to build consensus for your change, prior to reverting, by following the dispute resolution process. ← George talk 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

George, you are right about the edit warring, but you have failed to build consensus for your edits, and have failed to explain them. You have performed the same reverts without any explanation and without any consideration of these concerns. You have continued a needless edit war. Perhaps you should consider these serious concerns of WP:NPOV.

The use of the word "but" in the lead (which you have still not explained) is undoubtedly a weasel word. I have already discussed this above. I am not going to again.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which does nothing but criticize certain people, is criticism. This is clearly so when reading the article of that paper. It is treated as criticism in virtually every article on Wikipedia it is cited on, including Alan Dershowitz, Eliot A. Cohen, Campus Watch, the Saban Center, and others. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to include it as a part of the article's neutral text. Nothing about the paper is considered a neutral source (which I remind is different from notable), it is controversial and the place for it is criticism.

The use of "pro-Israel" as the very first word in the lead is incredibly misleading. This is not the way the organization is introduced. For some groups, like AIPAC, CAMERA, J Street, StandWithUs, the pro-Israel label makes sense. These organizations are advocating on behalf of Israel in some way or form, and are concerned with this issue primarily if not entirely. In almost whatever context, that adjective is included in the single phrase description of it. WINEP is completely different. It is a think tank that specializes in research of a wide array of Middle East politics. Whether or not some sources argue that they are favorable toward Israel in that topic (which is a fraction of their focus) is just that. It needs to be in context. That vast majority of articles in newspapers that cite it note it as a think tank or research institute of the Middle East and/or cite a scholar as an expert on a given topic (which, again, covers a wide array of subjects.) Other subjects of articles also include such allegations and descriptions of favorability and policy orientation, and it belongs in the article. It does not belong as the article's main description. That is unfair and misleading.--Shamir1 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shamir1. Thanks for taking the time to discuss these.
  • Regarding the word "but" in the lead, what do you propose? I suggested it as one of two options to Ricky81682 on November 3, 2009, he said it was fine the same day, and I implemented it - almost two months later. At no point during that period did you voice any concerns about the change.
  • The excerpt from the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in the policy orientation section simply states that WINEP is "funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel's agenda". Let me put this quite clearly - to say that someone is supportive of Israel is not criticism. If I say that someone is pro-America, is that criticism? No, and to say that being pro-Israel is somehow bad strikes me as discriminatory. It may be perceived as a controversial opinion, but it's about their policy orientation - not criticism. We clearly and accurately cite the opinion to the authors of the book for the quote, which keeps the text completely neutral.
  • Your entire last paragraph is your opinion on the subject, and we don't write articles based on our opinions. Multiple, reliable sources are cited for the term, the term is used ubiquitously when describing the group, and you haven't provided any reliable sources that contradict it. If reliable sources describe them a certain way, then that is how we describe them. ← George talk 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you for what I finally see as not beating around the bush.

  • "But" needs to be changed to an "and." I voiced concerns about this several times. Here, it is a weasel word.
  • I couldn't agree with you more regarding your conclusion that: "to say that someone is supportive of Israel is not criticism." I myself have seen editors similarly make this error (not regarding "pro-Israel", but other issues. You most certainly have a tendency to infer I said things that I did not remotely say.) However, nothing about the source is neutral, and the authors are making an argument. I don't think I have ever seen this source used in a section other than criticism or controversy. And that is not what I have issue with in the first place. The paper's concluding point about it is that there is "little diversity among the ranks" of the Washington Institute, and THAT is criticism. And it belongs in criticism. Nothing more is needed besides that concluding point.
  • You include an editorialist comparison of WINEP and AIPAC. These groups are not affiliated with each other. Your sentence "While AIPAC does ..., WINEP does...." is loaded. It infers that WINEP is an arm of AIPAC and/or that they have the same mission but different duties. This is not the case. If you want to use what they say about WINEP's activities, fine, but as a neutral encyclopedia in which we stick to facts and not nuances and implications, there is no reason to juxtapose it with a separate group (AIPAC) as if the two are reaching the same ultimate goal. The comparison to AIPAC in the lead too is misleading. These groups are not affiliated. They are separate groups. That "partisan" sentence (from a very old article) belongs in history, where it already is.
  • Nothing about that is "my" opinion. This article is beginning to reek of bias. It needs to be in context. There are sources that cite their policy orientation as generally pro-Israel or sympathetic toward Israel's interests in context and that belongs in the article's text. It is no way an appropriate label in the lead as the very first word (as if it was the basic descriptor for it) because that is not the what it is, nor how it is introduced in mainstream media, it does not deal solely or primarily with Israel or Israel-related issues, nor is it an advocacy group. It is incredibly misleading. The word "Israel" is nowhere to be found the in the broad majority of times they are cited by mainstream newspapers. Their fellows are cited as experts and scholars on a variety of topics. Israel is only a fraction of that. (This is all fact, again, not opinion.) We need to describe their activities comprehensively and accurately. They cover a wide array of Middle East topics, not focusing on one any more than the other. Descriptions the New York Times seems to stick with "a research organization in Washington," "a research center", " a research and study center," a "public research organization". [8][9][10][11][12] I could list dozens more where they are just cited as a research center on Middle East affairs, and their scholars as experts to comment on a given topic (that has little to nothing to do with Israel; nor is it advocating on behalf of it). The Los Angeles Times follows the same way, as do all other major newspapers.This NY Times article, which has no problem introducing AIPAC the way it should be ("the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington"), cites the Washington Institute as "a research center [in Washington]." Nothing to do there with pro-Israel. In fact, The Times states it will not call it a pro-Israeli policy group.[13] Keep things in context. Don't give undue weight to something that belongs in the body a swing it up to the lead. Research center on Middle East policy can be used in the lead.
As a suggestion to the article's body: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. This is based on the more recent article, which describes some surprise that the institute had hosted a keynote address that made Israeli officials uneasy. It's clear, descriptive and neutral as it doesn't go against their mission statement of the organization. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
ALSO, it is important that a tag is added to the article that notes that the neutrality of the article is a matter of dispute. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Changing "but" to "and" sounds like a run-on sentence. Any objection to just splitting this into two sentences?
  • Let me try to be clear - it doesn't matter if the source is neutral or not, it only matters if the source is reliable. It's entirely possible that other sections of the book (or even most of the book) are critical of WINEP, and excerpts from those sections would belong in a criticism section, but this excerpt simply isn't criticism. Saying that something has "little diversity" is not inherently criticism. If I say that there is little diversity among these diamonds, am I saying the diamonds are bad? No, I'm just saying they're all similar. We could remove the end of this sentence if you feel it's particularly critical, but I don't think it really changes much.
  • I'm not sure which sentence you're referring to, as I don't see any sentence that starts with "While WINEP does...", but the relationship between AIPAC and WINEP is laid out and sourced. WINEP was founded by former members of AIPAC. I also think that what you read as inferring that WINEP and AIPAC are parts of the same entity is in fact meant to do the opposite. The lead explicitly states that WINEP's goals are different from AIPAC's goals (note the term "in contrast to").
  • Being pro-Israel does not mean that a group "deals solely or primarily with Israel or Israel-related issues". It's just a policy orientation. I can be pro-America and not focus "solely or primarily" on America. A handful of sources that don't mention a policy orientation do not contradict the term. There are many sources that mention the United States that fail to mention that it's a democracy. Does that mean it's not a democracy? No. However, when reliable sources discuss America's political system, they mention that it is a democracy. Likewise, sources that mention WINEP's policy orientation, describe it as pro-Israel. If you have sources that discuss it's policy orientation as something else, I'd certainly be happy to read over them. With so many books and articles describing them as being pro-Israel, maybe someone from WINEP has weighed in on the matter and said "yes, we are pro-Israel" or "no, we're not pro-Israel". ← George talk 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has weighed in on the matter. I included links above (did you not read them?) and now below, too. The New York Times says it was a misstatement to describe the Washington Institute as "a pro-Israeli group." But again, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that I am saying things which I did not remotely say. This is not about pro-Israel policy, it is about calling it a "pro-Israel think tank" as its main descriptor (which most mainstream sources do not do) introduced as the first words in the article. That is misleading. It is out of context. You may find many articles that say that, but it referring to comments typically regarding Israel's interests and/or the Arab-Israeli conflict (again, see above or below). We should not give a one-sided or distorted picture of this article. The lead should be a brief and neutral description of its mission, activities, and notability. All other details can be described in the body of the article organized in the appropriate sections. Also, it would be wise to add a neutrality tag at the top of the page. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Shamir1. To use pro-Israel as the primary descriptor of WINEP in the first-sentence of the lead is poisoning the well and it should be changed immediately. "Pro-Israel" is not a comprehensive foreign policy outlook nor is it a comprehensive reflection of WINEP's work. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What would you propose as a way to describe the groups policy orientation in the lead? The change you made now makes the article say the exact opposite of what the sources (you removed) did. ← George talk 05:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and tweak the lead a bit. I moved the mention of the pro-Israel stance to the end of the lead, as to not poison the well. I've also removed the word "but", which Shamir1 objected to above, and tried to distinguish between those who describe it as a pro-Israel versus those that describe it as a part of the pro-Israel lobby. Let me know your thoughts. ← George talk 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed all your sources. They said nothing about whether or not WINEP is pro-Israel. Did you? The NYT article said that the group doesn't describe themselves as being "pro-Israeli" - something this article never stated. I think you really need to read WP:NPOV policy, because you seem to have a skewed view of what it means to be neutral. Neutrally describing something doesn't mean you describe it how it describes itself, it just means that you describe it proportionally to how others describe it. ← George talk 05:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV edits

1. George's lead: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a pro-Israel[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C., focused on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. It was established by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1985, but, in contrast to AIPAC's partisan image, the institute's mission statement states that it seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East."[4]'

WINEP is not, in short, "a pro-Israel think tank." That is misleading. If that were the case then it would be called such by all mainstream news outlets, which they do not do. They all refer to it as a research center or a think tank of Middle East affairs. They cite their analysis for a variety of Middle Eastern issues that do not have to with Israel or Israel advocacy (see a short list below). It is not their mission and the institute has a diverse group of advisors. All research groups and think tanks have general policy orientations, and in context we can find, in the fraction of articles that actually do pertain to Israel, comments regarding that. When in context of Israel's interests, such descriptions may appear, and great! Let it be in the article in the appropriate place. This is akin to describing Hillary Clinton in the first sentence as "a U.S. politician who favors health care reform." The first sentence needs to be appropriately descriptive. Your sentence is not. (And the "but" needs to be removed.) We need to describe their activities comprehensively and accurately. Pro-Israel policy is not their mission. They cover a wide array of Middle East topics, not focusing on one any more than the other.

The New York Times seems to stick with "a research organization in Washington," "a research center", " a research and study center," a "public research organization". See these articles to name a few: [14][15][16][17][18]

Dozens more could be listed when cited simply as a research center on Middle Eastern affairs, and their scholars as experts to comment on a given topic (that has little to nothing to do with Israel; nor is it advocating on behalf of it). The Los Angeles Times follows the same way, as do all other major newspapers.This NY Times article, which has no problem introducing AIPAC the way it should be ("the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington"), cites the Washington Institute as "a research center [in Washington]." Nothing to do there with pro-Israel. In fact, The Times states it will not call it a pro-Israeli policy group.[19] Keep things in context. Don't give undue weight to something that belongs in the body and swing it up to the lead. Research center on Middle East policy can be used in the lead.

In context, we can find: "In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests, on 'Building Security in the Broader Middle East.'" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6D8163EF930A25752C1A9609C8B63&pagewanted=3

That is why I propose in the body of the article: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. It's to the point and can apply to a number of broad issues in context. It does not go against the Institute's stated mission, it is based on a mainstream source, and it is not problematic.

2. WINEP is a notable think tank and taken the most seriously by the State Department. It's lead should briefly introduce what it is, its activities, and its board.

Proposed lead: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization that seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by Martin Indyk in 1985,[1] the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets.[2] The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State.[3]

3. George's sentence: The Policy Orientation section: "WINEP is focused on influencing the media and U.S. executive branch; this is unlike AIPAC, which attempts to influence the U.S. Congress through campaign contributions.[10]

This sentence is loaded. There is no reason why as an encyclopedia we should include "this is unlike AIPAC." This is also unlike the Human Rights Campaign. So what? These groups are separate and do not have the same mission. Secondly, the sentence seems odd and misleading, if not entirely misstated. AIPAC does not and has never contributed to political campaigns, nor have they ever endorsed candidates. The last part of the sentence needs to be removed.

The Walt and Mearsheimer piece (which like many things in this article, was once in the appropriate place) is criticism. It is criticism in every sense of the word. Have you not read the piece? The two are pursuing an argument, not a neutral historical observation as you almost seem to suggest. They are candidly critical of the Washington Institute (and other groups and individuals among the "lobby"). There conclusion is critical and unfavorable of WINEP. Ignoring that is ignoring the facts on the ground. This should not be given undue weight. It should be to the point like the rest of them. In Criticism, it is right to add: John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, write of the Washington Institute in their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, saying that: "Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."[13]

--Shamir1 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
Let's see here...
  1. It's not "George's lead", it's the articles current lead (well, prior to an editor's recent edits). This version was largely reviewed by an administrator who came here in response to a request for third opinion I filed, who added much of the information you mention. So please fix the introduction to your statement to not describe it as my lead, as I don't own anything.
  2. Your opinion aside, WINEP is often described as just that - "a pro-Israel think tank". I've provided numerous, reliable sources that use the exact phrase or similar variants. I specifically had them reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard, and they were judged to be reliable. I've made no insistance that the term "pro-Israel" be in the first sentence in the lead, I'm merely opposed to attempts to whitewash the article, and make its language match the wording of WINEP's own website - something you've been warned about by an administrator before. Your proposed wording, that WINEP is "sympathetic to Israel's interests", is problematic because that's not what sources say when describing it. They describe it as "pro-Israel", and I'm uncomfortable trying to infer what those sources mean beyond the term itself.
  3. Again, you're attributing a statement to me that was added by the administrator acting as a third opinion. So I'll ask you again to strike the accusation that this is my sentence.
I'm extremely worried about your assessment that "WINEP is a notable think tank and taken the most seriously by the State Department", especially in the context of your previous statement that you are "personally familiar with one of the scholars". I strongly question if you have a conflict of interest in this article, and ask that you explicitly explain what you meant by being "personally familiar" with a WINEP scholar. ← George talk 06:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Way to beat around the bush and twist words around. I will not address your last-resort nonsense. It does not deserve a response.
  1. It is the lead you are fighting to put in. That is what I meant. And you wrote it.
  2. This has nothing to do with my opinion. The vast majority majority of times the Washington Institute is mentioned the word "pro-Israel" does not appear. It's insight, activities, or comments on an issue is what is included. That is what WINEP is in short. The New York Times says it is a misstatement to describe the Washington Institute as a pro-Israeli policy group.[20] Secondly, I've already explained the pro-Israel label. It needs to be in context. The articles you chose that stated that all were directly about Israel or Israel's interests. So keep things neutral and in context. We are not whitewashing article. It may just look like that compared to the extreme POV edits I believe you have added. The lead did not include any of your labels until you added some edits; it was not "whitewashed" before either. And I said WINEP is notable, just like other think tanks are notable. Not that it's notable and great and wonderful. It is notable, and I don't see why you try to make it sound like a contentious statement. I believe the lead should just contain facts, and stay neutral. The lead I proposed does that. Your comment is also not true. I got the sentence directly from a mainstream news source (New York Times): "In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests, on Building Security in the Broader Middle East."[21] This is clear and descriptive, and is exactly what the other sources mean in regards to the policy orientation. --Shamir1 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. Perhaps you should actually address the point. That would be helpful. And by the way, the sentence is flawed. As noted above, AIPAC does not and has never contributed to political campaigns, nor do they endorse candidates.

--Shamir1 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. No, it is not the lead I'm "fighting to put in", it had been the status quo for some time, and the consensus version. It was the former lead, prior to some recent changes, which I also added to. I think the current lead is probably even better, but I don't own it either.
  2. You're confusing sources that mention something with sources that discuss something. The vast majority of sources that mention Barack Obama don't mention that he's a Democrat, but the vast majority of sources that discuss him do. The same is true for sources that discuss WINEP. When choosing sources for an article, we prefer sources that actually discuss the topic, in detail, not those that merely mention it.
  3. As I mentioned before, the NYT article says that the group does not describe itself as being pro-Israeli. That's not something I disagree with - I'm not aware of the group describing itself that way - but it also doesn't have anything to do with whether or not others describe them as being pro-Israel. Wikipedia is based on how others describe people, not how they describe themselves.
  4. Your argument about needing things to be put "in context" means very little to me. Please propose an edit that would achieve this, and I'll be happy to comment on it.
  5. Your quote is interesting. So one source describes the group as "generally sympathetic to Israel's interests" in passing, while other sources, that discuss the group directly (rather than just mentioning it, see above), describe it as being "pro-Israel". What is your objection to the latter term while supporting the former?
  6. I have no idea if AIPAC contributes to political campaigns or endorses candidates or not, but neither I nor the article says any such thing. Sounds like a red herring to me.
  7. I'm not sure what I'm supposedly trying to find a "last-resort" around, but the question still stands, and I'd appreciate if you could describe what you meant when you said you were "personally familiar" with one of their scholars. Maybe it wouldn't "beat around the bush and twist words around" quite so much if I just take the issue to the COI noticeboard, but I was hoping you could explain your statement here first. ← George talk 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to any of the ridiculous statements or analogies, most of which have already been needlessly dragged on. Please stick with content.

As noted, most mainstream sources and references to the organization describe it as Middle East research center (or variations thereof). I listed several sources. It is true that some sources consider them to be pro-Israel, but in the mainstream media this label is typically mentioned in the context of issues pertaining to Israel or Israel's interests, which is a fraction of their focus of study. Since the New York Times sees it as misstatement to call the organization such, and given that it does not reflect the mission or focus of the Washington Institute, I proposed a neutral and factual sentence (based on a mainstream source) that allows the reader to see such a view: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. [22] This is clear and descriptive, and is exactly what the other sources mean in regards to the policy orientation. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped you could help resolve my confusion over what I perceive as a possible conflict of interest, but if you're unwilling to do so I may have to seek the thoughts of others. I don't think it's fair for me to enter into long term discussions with you on this subject if you are advancing ulterior aims due to a COI.
Regarding the rest of your statement, see my response #2 above - mentioning something in passing is not the same as discussing it in detail. ← George talk 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
George, as I note in the section below, we have been exceedingly flexible given your well poisoning, POV edits and contribution of false information. I will hope you will compromise on this issue and not intimidate other users with COI threats where none belong. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you object to me calling your edits "white-washing"? If so, stop calling George's "well poisoning". nableezy - 21:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Watch the civility with regards to allegations of "well poisoning". The allegation is solely your own, and it's made against a statement that an uninvolved administrator acting as a third opinion reviewed, agreed with, and bolstered with multiple, reliable sources - all in the very location you label "well poisoning". I've in no way insisted on "well poisoning", even by your own definition, as I moved the statement even further down the lead than yourself. And I gave Shamir1 ample time to reply to my COI concerns here, which he chose not to do. If you're unaware, Shamir1 was blocked for edit warring on this very article for the better part of the last several months, and is currently topic banned from editing it for 12 months, so yes, I'm more suspicious of his edits than I would be the average editor. That does not mean I'm "intimidating" or "threatening" anyone. ← George talk 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be respectful and do not attack each other's viewpoints. Our differences are not as drastic as this long debate may suggest. It's unfortunate that George says he senses a conflict of interest. I do not know if this is sincere or if he is trying to stifle other concerns, but regardless of the motives it is unfortunate and it only hinders us from arriving at a solution.

I'm not exactly sure what George means by "in passing" since the details of the article are very clear and direct, and do not contradict the same message George is advocating to include. The New York Times is of course a reliable source, and the source here is an article bound by a standard of objectivity, which can give us some suggestions as to editing factually and neutrally. I'm not sure what he is trying to downplay. The New York Times is an excellent source to use. It is not about another source disagreeing over a detail in the book, but rather what is considered the subject of the article's main description. In any case, most editors agree about the main description of the subject that belongs in the lead (research center on Middle East policy) and that the lead should describe what the Institute does. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple. A book written - about the Washington Institute for Near East Policy specifically, or think tanks in Washington, or American politics in general - which dedicates a chapter or a section or a paragraph to describing WINEP is discussing the group. An article in the New York Times that talks about "the effect of resurgent Arab nationalism on the Middle East peace effort", which just happens to mention WINEP when quoting one of their scholars, is not discussing WINEP, they are merely mentioning them. You've in no way addressed the multitude of reliable sources that describe the group as pro-Israel, instead only addressing your own, single, cherry-picked source which does not. That's not how Wikipedia articles are written. ← George talk 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Stubbornness solves nothing. Your nuances and allegations avoid the very fact that the New York Times source is just as notable and reliable as any. Your downplaying the reliability of the source, which directly addresses the perception in such books, is not based on WP policy but rather your own preferences. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? You don't think that perhaps you're overstating the case for the single reliable source you've found, which only states that "It describes itself as a public educational foundation that supports scholarly research and debate on the Middle East, not a pro-Israeli group" - something I don't disagree with? Somehow this single source describing the group's own stance trumps the multiple, reliable sources cited in the article? ← George talk 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My goodness, George, I'm not sure if you are purposely trying to misunderstand or confuse two issues. All agree that pro-Israel is not the main descriptor of this research organization. The New York Times indicates what it was a misstatement to introduce the organization as, for whatever reason. The pro-Israel label is a subjective perception of their policy, and a source's perceptions can be included in the article. Your comments suggest that my position is that a certain source trumps all others. That is not true. What I am saying is to encompass that view in a sentence in the article's policy orientation. The sentence (The Institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests.) does not ignore those sources, it encompasses all of them. That view is explicitly outlined in the clearest of terms. And the clarity of the sentence is an asset to its factuality and neutrality. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me try to clear up some confusion. Whether or not "pro-Israel" is the "main descriptor" when referring to WINEP has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it should or should not be used in the lead. If lots of reliable sources describe them as such, which they do, then it is significant. If it's significant, then it warrants inclusion in the body of the article. If its in the body of the article then, it should be summarized in the lead. The NYT article does not indicate that it is a misstatement, no matter how many times you cite or misrepresent it. It doesn't matter if pro-Israel is a subjective perception or not, as long as it is widely used when describing the group in reliable sources. I'm glad we agree on including further details of what reliable sources describe as a pro-Israel policy stance in the body, but as it forms a significant portion of the body, it also deserves summary in the lead. ← George talk 05:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of confusion here. I thought I was being clear and I'm sorry if I wasn't. What ends up happening with this confusion is you seem to suggest I am suggesting things that I never said, and we end up going back and forth. Basically, I was indicating that it is agreed upon not to describes the Washington Institute as a "WINEP is a pro-Israel think tank." I think you also misunderstood the point about political sympathies and tilts being subjective. Because they are subjective and this is a perception, it should be written more along the lines of "WINEP is considered pro-Israel." That is the point I was making, and I don't think you are against this.
The next item of business is if it belongs in the lead. It has never been in the lead until now to begin with. You claim that it needs to be summarized in the lead. It's one sentence. It already is a summary. I don't believe that we should overplay allegations of bias or tilts. They research on a broad array of topics pertaining to the Middle East, and Israel is only a fraction of that. We should not convey a misleading image. Note other articles like Hoover Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and American Enterprise Institute which briefly introduce the group's mission, research, and its board. In the body of the article, I believe we can summarize the issue of political sympathies. I found an article from a mainstream source that says it is considered to be "generally sympathetic to Israel's interests." This language is much clearer, especially in regards to a foreign policy think tank. It encompasses the view of the sources you are talking about. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're in general agreement on your first paragraph. While I think there is some justification to write "WINEP is a pro-Israel think tank" in the lead, I'm fine with compromising, which is what gave the current wording, in the last sentence of the lead: "The group is often described as being pro-Israel".
I'm not sure what you mean by "it has never been in the lead until now to begin with", and I'm not even sure what the "it" you're describing is. WINEP's policy orientation with regards to Israel has been in for quite some time... at least for the last six months. And I don't think it's conveying a "misleading image" or alleging "bias or tilts" when Martin Indyk, one of its founders, explicitly stated that he wanted WINEP to be "friendly to Israel".
The Wikipedia articles you keep pointing to have zero meaning to me. They're not featured articles. They're not even good articles. If you want to point to another article as an example, find an FA or GA quality article, because poor quality articles are not a model to imitate. There is nothing to indicate that those article's shouldn't describe those groups' policy orientations, because they haven't undergone any sort of review process.
Regarding your statement that WINEP is "generally sympathetic to Israel's interests", where are you proposing that be inserted? ← George talk 06:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we cannot guess what Indyk's "explicit" words meant (that may not have to do with "pro-Israel"). We leave it at that, ant that does not require further summary or analysis on our part. Again, that sentence is already included in the background section of the article.

I am aware that WINEP's policy orientation has been in for quite some time; that is not the point I made. I was clear to say that it was not in the lead, as it usually is not.

Policy orientation is speculative and complex. In cases like these, especially a foreign policy think tank that concerns a number of Middle East issues, it needs a clear explanation. The lead should stick to plain facts, addressing what it is and does. The vast majority of times it is mentioned in the media they are introduced as a Middle East research institute based in Washington, and their scholars as experts on a broad array of topics pertaining to the Middle East. (Words like Israel and pro-Israel are not mentioned. This is unlike groups like CAMERA, J Street, JINSA, AIPAC, etc., which focus solely or primarily on Israel.) The lead should reflect this. Also significant are the sources that state it has a tilt, and that should be in context, not overplayed in the lead. In a section of the article that describes its activities and policy orientation, we should include: "The institute is considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests." That way, we can recognize the perception of the institute's policy in the relevant place. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't guessing at Indyk's meaning, as he's not the one cited for the term pro-Israel in the article. However, if you consider the term pro-Israel to be an alleged bias, then Indyk's own description of being "friendly to Israel" is equally slanted. And to be clear, WINEP's policy orientation has been in the lead for some time... at least six months.
We don't speculate, and we don't worry about "plain facts" or the truth. All we do is repeat what reliable sources say. Regarding your suggested sentence, where would you like it inserted in the policy orientation section? ← George talk 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy/Archive_1&oldid=1137309405"