Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/Four quotes

Below is what has transpired on the talk page. Despite a week's notice, there was no objection just a minor factual question and no notice or suggestion they needed to be brought to mediation. When I finally put them in, Jayjg deleted allowing no time for discussion per my request. Note that after Jayjg's new changes, the page now has a This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. template.

---

NOTE: Carol's original post March 22 called "Four New Quotes"

The first makes important point.

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

2. Do Zionists Run America? by Allen Ruff. Review of James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States(Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006) What sets Petras' work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms "Jewish lobby," "Israel lobby," and "Zionist lobby" are used interchangeably." He adds: "In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, he states that he is justified in using the term "Jewish lobby" since that is what the Israelis use when discussing political support in the United States -- as if adopting the Zionist movement's cynical appropriation of all things Jewish serves any progressive purpose.

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

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

Who is Hagit Borer? What do you think the Ibrahim quote adds? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hagit Borer (shown in either blue or red), is a linguistics professor, who moderated a debate on our subject at hand.

Youssef Ibrahim, possibly answering a rhetorical question, states what he thinks should be obvious, and why, and then goes on to note what other similar ethnic groups do, which brings to his quote both legitimacy and NPOV. He also notes that the largest Jewish population (US), supports a similar population in Medinat Yisrael, because a similar number were exterminated during the Holocaust. This last thought notes anti-Semitism, which along with earlier 19th-Century, European incidents, was the primary cause and impetus for the establishment of political Zionism by Herzl, et.al.

The second (Ruff) ref (which is not a rough ref) brings in the very important term "Zionist lobby", which is historical fact and easily RS-able, that might otherwise be argued on spurious OR grounds. It is however, the link that that establishes the 'lobby' group within the Jews of the world as well as in America.[1][2] (Other than some lead-in, I am starting the 'History section' there; My (historical perspective) POV is that the terms should not be "used interchangeably," but at times may be used that way (after all three were established, and have since been tied-at-the-hip. Comments?) The question asked, "Do Zionists Run America?" is extremely important, because it highlights part of the 'Israeli(Jewish?) identity crisis'and tends to confirm the, as yet single, Tivnan quote now in the article.

The third (Petras) ref brings up issues that must be included in an encyclopedic discussion of our subject; they are basic and illuminating in regard to understanding the subject, rather than just describing it; I see it as one of those Wiki-basic "for the benefit of the readers" things. With a quick step to my soapbox, his last sentence happens to (somewhat) state my greatest personal fear concerning our subject, because Messianic fervor for Eretz Israel may become detremental to support for and longevity of Medinat Yisrael, given the 'modern' world's view of equal, human and civil rights for all peoples. An recent indication of how this difference can go awry is indicated here Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

CO48, again, who is Hagit Borer? The website that linked to her told me nothing about her really. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. interchangeability of terms, it is obvious from any google alert subscription or internet search that in most discourse by everyone from Jews to antisemities the terms ARE used fairly interchangably. These quotes were best I could find so far that reflect that fact. The critics we quote here are some of the few people who object to that.

Obviously the historical link between use of terms Zionist and Jewish lobby needs to be clarified but this is not place for hsitry of all these lobbies - Israel lobby articles better place.

While I have not had time to play with it, my idea was to put quotes that make interchangability point briefly in descriptive section, with Australian BB ADC quote first to put "descriptive" uses right up front.

Let's try to avoid long soap boxes because it tempts others to do so - don't start me on libertarian property rights and right to self-determination only on justly acquired property ;-) (A view rejected by many on both sides of issue.)

Carol Moore 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, the questions remain unanswered:

1) Who is Hagit Borer, and why would we quote her? Please be very explicit about the response.

2) Who is Allen Ruff, and why would we quote him in Monthly Review, a socialist magazine run by committed Marxists? The webzine and author seem rather extremist; for example, the section in the quote refers to "Israel's racist and expansionist practices".

3) Given your putative objection to "self-published" sources, why would you include a self-published quote from Petras' personal website? Also, please note, Petras again simply uses the term, but does not describe or define it.

Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• To start, your edit summary reads: (Carol, I would have hoped that you would work through the mediation, rather than continually trying to force policy-violating material into the article. In any event, see Talk: and the mediation) Please tell me where this is a rule of mediation. Also, I gave you a whole week to comment on this or let me bring to mediation.
• 1)Your only and single question or comment before was on Borer - therefore I had to assume you had NO problem with the rest of the quotes. And I answered it by putting her faculty summary as one of two references after her name.
• 2) Allen Ruff "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Monthly Review is on wikipedia. You thought that was sufficient when you compared DissidentVoice.Org (knocked off wikipedia for no references) to Jewish Virtual Library (which is still on wikipedia despite having no references). What evidence do you provide per Wikipedia:Rs#Extremist_sources that this source is "widely acknowledged" as extremist?
• 3) In wikipedia policy there is a difference between self-published sources libeling people per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources and self-published sources which are OK per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Now I wasn't sure how much might be relevant but since no one had commented, I had to wing it.

Carol Moore 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

1) Carol, what can you tell me about Hagit Borer? From what I can tell her specialty is "comparative syntax, morphosyntax and language acquisition - does this make her a relevant source for our article? Moreover, she seems, as an aside, to have equated the "Jewish lobby" with the "Israel lobby" and with "AIPAC", although more knowledgeable sources seem to insist that there are, in fact, significant distinctions between all three. Can you explain what expertise she has that makes her parenthetical comment worth quoting?

2) O.K., Allen Ruff is a political activist, that's obvious. Can you explain what would make him any sort of reliable source worth quoting on this? Or Monthly Review, a Marxist publication? Please justify it in terms of these sources, and this article, not other articles, and other publications. Keep in mind that the very quote you wanted to use also refers to "Israel's racist and expansionist practices", so it's pretty radical, and that Ruff's claim to be a historian rests on his book about "Charles H. Kerr & Company", a socialist publisher, not about the topic of this article.

3) Petras has a book he wrote on the subject, that was actually published. Why wouldn't you quite that, rather than his self-published website?

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since reverting had been mentioned so many times and everyone seemed to feel it was hindering our ability to work through issues (and I agree there), I made a request at WP:RFPP. Once we can get the issues causing the edit warring worked out, the article can be unprotected through the normal process as well. I'd like to point out that edit warring and reverting are never a productive way to work out issues on an article. Discussion, editing compromises and soliciting outside input are much healthier ways to resolve article issues (and much more likely to actually resolve the problem). Shell ^babelfish 17:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shell, I think that will help us focus on the mediation, rather than the state of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Before responding to Jayjg's second round of questions on these four quotes, I'd like to know if Shell's action of asking for the article to be locked after those quotes were reverted means Shell thinks the quotes were unduly reverted? Is there anything Shell - or others - thinks needs explaining in the quotes? Any Jayjg questions too nitpicky to ask? I'm not saying there are not any issues, just want Shell's (or others') ideas of what they might think relevant first. Carol Moore 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I looked at the article history, saw daily reverting was still ongoing and asked for its protection. This is not an endorsement of the current or any other version, just an endorsement of using methods other than edit warring to work on an article. I think this line of discussion needs to be continued until the concerns have at least been answered. I am going to ask you again, very specifically to stop discussing Jayjg in a negative manner -- in fact, please stop discussing any other editors in any manner and stick to the mediation and the content. This applies not only to you, but everyone in the mediation -- we cannot and will not be discussing conduct here and any further allusions to the motives or behavior of another editor will be struck Shell ^babelfish 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Jayjg’s Second Set of Questions

Might as well get it over with! First, it is fair to compare sources within the article because if these overly strict, nitpicky objections can be made about quotes that do not “prove” this phrase is antisemitic, the same can be done to quotes saying it is antisemitic. That is the essence of edit warring. We have challenged some of these remaining quotes but do not constantly harp on it or revert them (except Cesarani and lesser extent Gee), as Jayjg does - as well as others who come in only to back up these reverts. (But we could always do a mathematical table to figure out those statistics ;-) IMHO, these challenges often have less basis than those we could use if we chose to challenge quotes that make general accusations of antisemitism.

• Hagit Borer’s academic resume - which was included in the quote Jayjg reverted - clearly shows she is an expert on linguistics and assumedly does not use words lightly. She “Hosted and produced by Hagit Borer for the SWANA (South and West Asia and North Africa) Collective of KPFK”(From description on debate page) which means she has background in the issue (Israel being in West Asia). (Which should be added to the description of quote.) She obviously had to be familiar to pick the guests and ask the questions, which are on the cited page. She is as well prepared as the various “experts,” journalists and paid propagandists quoted in the “antisemitism” section.
• There are different opinions on whether Jewish lobby is or is not used interchangeably with Israel lobby (or whether should be) and to be NPOV the article should reflect that. James Petras is one of those who sees them as being interchangeable.
• Jayjg already dismissed Kim Peterson’s lengthy comments on Petra use of the phrase at DissidentVoice - here. (Dissident Voice was deleted for having no references. Jewish Virtual Library - which Jayjg cites - survives despite also having no references. (See Talk:Jewish_lobby/archive1#WP:V_-_comparing_Jewish_Virtual_Library_and_Dissident_Voice). Now he wants to delete an article from Monthly Review even though it has a wiki article (also unreferenced like Jewish Virtual Library). If the publication is acceptable, it’s usually accepted the writers is whether s/he is an activist, a historian, a journalist, works for some organization that does propaganda on these issues, etc.
• That Israel is an expansionist and apartheid state is hardly an extremist view, given that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu among billions of others think so. Is it necessary to provide dosens of expert quotes reflecting that view?
• I could hustle up quotes from Petras’ book but it’s always nice to provide a direct link people can read. Plus this quote adds more info on perceptions of the “jewish/israel/etc” lobby from a critics perspective. And Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 ok’s use of such self-published uses.

In short, I think these three quotes belong in article - though Petras might be shorter and more focused, willing to discuss that.

Carol Moore 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Comments:

• Hagit Borer is a linguist with no verifiable expertise or relevance to this area. Assumptions from a debate she hosted are not the same as verifiable expertise.
• Would it make sense to have a section on the article discussing the viewpoint that the term Jewish lobby is interchangeable with Isreal lobby? This seems to be a significant viewpoint.
• The fact that other sources have been used or discarded has no bearing on this argument; please debate the use of your source on its own merits and without referring to other editors.
• Again, please discuss the merits of the source; whether or not a certain view is held by more than one person does little to explain whether or not it is extremist. Please address the issue of the source as a whole and not the single point of that statement used as an example.
• If Petra is an expert and acceptable source via her book, her website should be no different in terms of reliability unless there are any specific concerns that have not been brought up. Shell ^babelfish 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

• I'll keep my eye out for any evidence of Borer's expertise besides being part of a collective which produces a lot of Israel/Palestine related radio programming, per this KPFK page.
• Re: "section on the article discussing the viewpoint that the term Jewish lobby is interchangeable with Israel lobby?" Claims could be both that it is used that way (whether or not really the same) and that it is the same for whatever reason. Some such quotes could go under definitions; others might go elsewhere.
• Re: extremist, does wikipedia consider all socialist and marxist sources extremist? Otherwise, what are the criteria? And how does one prove a view point is NOT extremist except to refer to the many arguments by many credible people saying that it is not? (I can do that but mentioned names just as a starting point.) But also will search for more WP:RS about Petras' views.
• Glad Petras' web page fits the bill. Carol Moore 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Shell, in response to your question "Would it make sense to have a section on the article discussing the viewpoint that the term Jewish lobby is interchangeable with Israel lobby?", which sources actually discuss this issue or make this point? I'm not aware of any. Also, regarding James Petras, I think there's a big difference between what one can get printed in a book and what one can publish on one's website. Given that he's written a book on the subject, I think we should be relying on that as a source, rather than the website. Your thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had at one time suggested that the various citations could be divided into three sections

• Descriptive - information about the "Jewish lobby" as such.
• As a synonym for the Israel lobby.
• Antisemitic.

We have cites which could reasonably fit in each category. --John Nagle (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Who decides whether a usage is "descriptive"? Which source describes any uses of the term as "descriptive"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I think it is important to remind editors here that WP works by editors finding relevant info and accurate quotes with citations to RS, and that the burden of proof is not on those editors trying to add this relevant info, but on the editors who insist on deleting them. These quotes are relevant, accurate, and from RS. So why are they being deleted? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry no, you have that backwards - if material is challenged, the burden of proof is on editors who wish to include material. Please familiarize yourself with the state of the discussion and address the points being made. Shell ^babelfish 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, if they are challenged then the burden of proof is on the editors who wish to include the material to show that it is relevant, accurate, and cited to RS. This has already been done. So why are they being deleted? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because what might constitute proof to you may not to someone else, which is what we're here discussing. If you'd like to join in the discussion, please do so. If you would like to discuss policy or the application thereof, lets take this somewhere else, okay? Shell ^babelfish 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not so much interested in "discussing policy" as I am in your reminding all editors of WP policy when they violate that policy. I think that as an Admin running a arbitrationmediation (am I correct in assuming you are an Admin?) that this is a very important thing to do during mediation to keep it fair and open. Do you agree? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not arbitration, this is WP:Mediation which are very different beasts indeed. I did bring up and even link to the policy, which clearly states that the burden is on the editor wishing to include information. I appreciate the fact that you feel you have fulfilled that burden, however, other editors are still questioning the inclusion, wording or have other issues, which is what we're here to discuss. Please remember that Wikipedia editing works by consensus which means there are going to be very few black and white areas; most issues are resolved by discussion and collaboration. Shell ^babelfish 05:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong word, but I am fully aware that arbitatation and mediation are different. I corrected it elsewhere but didn't see this one.

Second, your citation of the Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence is making my point exactly, since if you follow your citation you will see that the full quote is: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The point I have been making is that this has been done - the burden of proof has been met. The challenged material has been quoted and cited to a reliable source using an inline clear and precise citation. Once that has been done, the burden is on the editor who is removing relevant properly cited text. So once again, why is it being deleted?

You've made it clear that you believe the burden of proof has been met. Other editors are equally as certain that it has not. Please read the discussion and you will see why editors feel one way or another. If you have any comments to make about the ongoing discussion here please do so, but blanket statements like the ones you're making are unlikely to help resolve the issues we're talking about. Shell ^babelfish 06:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above ongoing discussion and I do not see any editors above who question that the burden of evidence you cite has been met - namely that quotations are clearly and precisely attributed to reliable published sources with inline citations. Instead I see completely irrelevant questions such as "What do you think the Ibrahim quote adds", or "please discuss the merits of the source". These are the wrong questions: the question should be: "Why are editors deleting relevant properly cited text sourced to RS?" Jgui (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a statement clearly and precisely attributed to a reliable source does not guarantee its inclusion in an article. There are many other things to consider such as the wording, NPOV, weight...is there any reason you have a problem with discussing these issues in a constructive manner? Shell ^babelfish 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Shell, I absolutely have no problem discussing these and other issues in a constructive manner. In fact, that is what I am trying to do. But as an Admin who is running this mediation, I think it is important for you to remind the editors who are attempting to delete these clear and precise statements from reliable sources that it is up to them to cite whatever problems they think they see with these statements. As you state, it is up to these editors to cite problems with wording, NPOV, weight, etc. to justify their assertion that the quotes should be removed: it is not up to Carol to prove that they should be included.

If Jayjg is able to raise valid objections to particular quotes, then of course I will be happy to discuss them. So far, I have not seen any. I think you did an excellent job of summarizing why Petra's text should be included: "if Petra is an expert and acceptable source via her book, her website should be no different". And that leaves the assertion that a linguist who has papers published in RS discussing the derivation of the term Jewish lobby is not sufficiently qualified to be quoted in WP. Do you consider this a serious argument? Jgui (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But I've already raised them; and, in fact, others have agreed with them. It's not really up to you to decide that, because you don't agree with me, my objections are not "valid". Borer's expertise is unrelated to the topic, and including her off-hand parenthetical remark while moderating a debate is making far more out of what she said than is warranted. Ruff is an unknown, and the source is extremist. Petras is a retired professor, and his work was not published by a university press, but by a small activist press. Petras's area of expertise was "Development, Latin America, the Caribbean, revolutionary movements, class analysis"[3] - nothing to do with the "Jewish lobby". Now, the fact that he managed to get his book published makes it a good enough source for this article, I suppose, but that doesn't give him a pass on stuff he published on his website. WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, your objections are not invalid because I think they are; they are invalid because they are based on your own personal point of view and not on WP guidelines or policies. Borer satisfies all WP guidelines for inclusion: you cite WP:V, but this meets all the WP:V policies. You cite WP:UNDUE, but this is not WP:UNDUE - it is not a "borderline" POV held by a zealous minority which is what WP:UNDUE is meant to address. So unless you can cite some specific way in which Borer violates some WP policy, your objection is invalid.

Jayjg, then you cite WP:V again in reference to Ruff. But this is not an extremist view, which is what the WP:V is intended to cover. So this objection is also invalid.

Jayjg, finally you complain about Petras, but as I noted above, Shell already dealt with your invalid objection to Petras.

Jayjg, your personal POV is not what determines what is included in WP; it is WP policies and guidelines that determine what is included in WP. If you have some valid objections, then please make them here. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, Shell has also made it clear that Borer's expertise is not relevant to this article, and Borer's comment was off-hand and parenthetical - therefore excluded because of WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Regarding Allen Ruff, his notability is unclear, and his views are published in a Marxist publication, which is extremist - I've given examples above. Therefore, excluded because of Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources. Finally, regarding Petras, it's odd how you insist that Shell is wrong about everything and ignore what Shell says, excepts when it suits you. In any event, material from his book could be used, though he has no expertise on the topic, but views from his website are excluded because of WP:SPS. That is what policy says. If you don't have any argument besides "no, you're wrong", and "your objections aren't valid because I don't agree with them", then we're done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a mediation. So the Admin doesn't decide things, just weighs in and we can all accept (successful mediation) or not (unsuccessful), depending on issue. Mediator please clarify if I'm wrong.

Some things I believe have been accepted by all (forget which!?!); some tentatively (like Oxford where I said I wasn't sure and was waiting for others with more definitive opinions); others we're looking for more evidence (like Borer); some haven't even finished being debated yet (like Petras); other problems with current quotes haven't even been raised yet and I'll get around to it soon, since busy just replying to current issues, and behind on that!! We need a chart!! Meanwhile don't claim issues are settled that are not. And I'll refrain from socio-political speculation on lobbies and their inner workings :-) Thanks. Carol Moore 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}