Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby

Discussion Archives Discussion prior to mediation Protection of the article How OR applies to the article David Cesarani quote status Perjorative vs Antisemitic OED quote status Four new quotes for the article Walt and Mearsheimer Quotes Neologism Mention of Professions

Topics to be discussed Discuss Mediation (special area) Should the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia quote be moved to the antisemitism section? Is Paul Findley considered a primary source for purposes of this article?

Agreements from closed discussions Discussing content based on WP:NEO should stop. Editors agree that WP:NEO should not be applied to this article, and it should not be used to justify removal of text from this article. Instead, other applicable WP policies should be used -- if you feel something is undue weight, unverifiable, original research or whatever the case may be, make the argument that way. If issues emerge that appear irresolvable, everyone is strongly encouraged to use RfC or other dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the issue. Focus on discussing content. Avoid bringing up what editors do elsewhere, use policy based arguments instead. Once issues are resolved, let them rest.

Should the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia quote be moved to the antisemitism section?

• Quote: The full quote currently is the first paragraph under the section "Definition." It reads: 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]
• History: Originally the section was called "Description" and contained only the first sentence. Jayjg deleted the section header as irrelevant and I reverted that and added the second sentence because it used the phrase "descriptive", with no thought to the concept of "definition." Later Jayjg changed the section name to "Definition" which was fine with me.
• Currently: But now that second sentence is clearly out of context because it attempts to make a distinction about what is or is not antisemitic. Such discussions belong in the "Antisemitism" section and I have no problem with moving that second sentence to that section, if someone wants to do so. Otherwise it should just be dropped from the article. Carol Moore 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Having heard no comment in seven days, shall we assume there is no problem with my removing the sentence? (Someone else can re-insert it elsewhere if they choose, though I think there already are a plethora of opinions without examples on this topic.) Carol Moore 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think we should probably assume that the majority of participants are no longer interested in continuing the mediation. Its stretched out quite a while and most of the editors had wandered off before now. Since emailing the other participants didn't bring anyone back, I am closing the mediation. Shell ^babelfish 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

W&M Quotes

• Previous discussion

Mediation Notes

Will you be listing other agreements under "Agreements from closed discussions"? The only other ones that I remember for sure that we finalized were W&M Quotes 2 and 3. If there were more, that shows we need to list agreements! :-) Carol Moore 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ping

Just checking to see if we've got folks off for summer vacation or if there's anything I can do to help things along. Shell ^babelfish 14:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current professions, Leslie Gelb and Washington Post issues closed so should be removed from "Topics to be Discussed"
• Re: M&W Quote #1, Unless there is some new info (like where Jgui wants to use the quote) or Jayjg has agreed to let others use it, it should go to some other forum for resolution.
• We should work on this next, since the issue in question already is IN the article: Should the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia quote be moved to the antisemitism section? It probably will be a quick discussion one way or the other. Carol Moore 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

That sounds like a reasonable next step. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with opening the new section, but I'm not sure how meaningful further discussion will be without having the other participants involved. I'll try another round of emails and see if that brings anyone else back. Shell ^babelfish 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)