Talk:American Israel Public Affairs Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Christian Evangelicals

A large portion of AIPAC's strength is derived from right wing christians who believe Israel is the key to armageddon; so I'm suprised they aren't included in this article. It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable in this topic could add something to the article. --Hokiefan 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the role of evengelical Christians in the Jewish lobby is generally exagerated, and anyways religious Christians are not really represented in AIPAC itself. Since this article is not really about the entire Israel-US relationship I don't think that the role of right-wing christians is particularly relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. It is customary to add new sections to the bottom of the talk page rather than the top of the page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the role of Evengelical Christians in their support of Israel is incredibly strong and is not based on Israel being the key to Armageddon. The bond exists because Christians in general believe in the Jews as the Chosen People of God and respecting Jews and Israel is instrumental in being a good Christian. Some ministers like Pastor John Hagee go even further and make ministering about Israel a top priority. Pastor Hagee is the Founder and National Chairman of Christians United for Israel. Other well-known ministers like Rev. Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer are on the Executive Board of Directors of CUI as well. However, I do agree with Moshe that the Christian-Jewish relationship would be beyond the scope of this article. Jtpaladin 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lobbying Power

Wikipedia should be NPOV. And whether your views of AIPAC are positive or negative, noone can deny their power as a lobbying organisation. Indeed, they boast of it on their websites as a key attribute. Therefore the section on "Lobbying Power" should remain.

If you think AIPAC lists lobbying as one of its strengths, you can quote them doing so in the "Strengths" section. As for the other quotes, there is a section for them all down below, and you can add any relevant ones. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Lobbying power requires its own seperate section as it is absolutely integral to the way the organisation works. If you accept that the material should be there just in seperate sections, then this is really an argument over semantics, and the Lobbying power section should remain 12 May 2005
The article already has plenty of material dealing with this, as well as a section for quotes. Just because you think it is important doesn't mean it requires its own section, which in fact includes nothing from AIPAC itself, and instead just has your own POV about AIPAC, combined with a couple of quotes from American politicians. Jayjg (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The quotes are from AIPAC's own site. They provided the material, and indeed openly publicise it. The fact that you want to suppress information about this organisation suggests strongly that you are trying to impose your own POV on the article. Lobbying power is a key part of what AIPAC is. I think if anyone is trying to impose their own POV it is you. May 12th

Jayjg, perhaps you should reedit the article including the quotes, in the activities section if you think that is best. I don't think it is fair to just remove content - the article is way under the maximum under current guidelines, and the content is important. Otherwise we will just be repeating these childish tit for tat changes, and it would really be better to come to some kind of consensus.

The article already contains this information. Lobbying is mentioned right up front, so is pro-Israel. If you think the quotes are extremely important, why don't you include a couple at the end. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I've done as you suggested. 13 May 2005

[edit] Various POV

This article as it is currently written comes across to me as if it came directly from AIPAC's PR department. It needs major POV work. -Cab88

It seems that AIPAC is more loyal to Israel than the USA itself.AIPAC should be outlaw as a terrorist organization for promoting business and arms to the terrorist state of Israel.With these organization,the possiblity of a Palestinian state is Zero

User Cab88 is correct. The current entry is 100% Zionist propaganda that fails to acknowledge AIPAC's life or death power over American politicians and journalists. Tell the truth!!!

I've rewritten the article to at fix the POV issues such a making sure all subjective or debatable pro-AIPAC claims are attributed to it's AIPAC and it's supporters and making sure the views of it's critics are covered to at least some degree. Hopefully now we can stop having a edit war over the appropriateness of NPOV tag. -Cab88

Please, will those trying to keep the blantantly POV version stop waste our time by removing from my NPOV additions as I am more then willing to revert them back as often as needed. If you have a problem with any additon of mine then please discuss on the talk page first. -Cab88

As I promised I reverted to the NPOV rewrite once again. I would say to Jewbacca, who suggests I need to talk about revisions befor making major edits, so far as I know no such rule exist. Besides, my revision was not exactly a wholesale rewrite. I keep much of the original material, simply adding attribution to the claims made to AIPAC and it's supporters so as to separates simple facts from debatable claims. The main POV issues with the original article and why it was POV are as follows:

  • The article's claims as to why AIPAC is a effective as they is in POV.
  • The claim that AIPAC represent both Israel and US interest is also POV. Some people disagree with claim.
  • AIPAC does have it's share of critics and for this article to be NPOV it must include their views on AIPAC.

Now Jewbacca, as I stated before, If you have problem with any part of my rewrite then please discuss it here. As long as you refuse to explain what it is about my rewrite you don't like and simply revert the article then I will revert it back. -Cab88

Jewbacca, your rewrite was less POV then the old version you kept reverting too but you can't simply leave out the critisisms of AIPAC just because you disagree with them. Articles like this need to have a counterbalancing viewpoints. Only presenting AIPAC and it's supporters views is not NPOV and I'm sure you know that. I've added back the paragraph omn it's critics after doing a rewrite and citing external sources. Let's not have another round reverts as you must know by know I do not give in easially. When you make major edits or reverts it is best if you explain what your concerns/complaints were here at the talk page just as I have done above. -Cab88

Greetings. I just completed a substantial revision. It's not a rewrite, because I did not delete any existing text or opinions. I added information on AIPAC's activities and accomplishments, and noted some important missing information such as the resignation of president Steiner and other controversies. I also added a quotations section, to which I invite contributions. I especially would like quotations specifically and overtly praising AIPAC. I could not find enough of those on my own. Peace.--A. S. A. 10:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's a very apt quote, thanks Jayig. It's great that you found one from the same May 2004 conference pictured at the beginning of the article. A couple more like that ought to round out the quotations section.--A. S. A. 17:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I thought it went well with the picture. I'll try to see if I can find other quotes. However, I have a fundamental problem with all these quotes; I believe they should actually be transwiki'd to Wikiquote, and a link provided here. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I confess I am still a newbie in many respects, and transwiki-ing to Wikiquotes is above my head. I will have to read up on that soon. Mainly when I've added quotations to articles I just used other articles which already had such a segment as a guide. I know there's a lot more to it under the surface though. Wiki-research time.--A. S. A. 21:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV.. does this need a tag

I think that this article should likely have a NPOV tag at the top. Does anyone agree? --jacobolus (t) 06:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not. What specifically do you regard as POV, and what is your suggested NPOV rewording?--A. S. A. 16:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well maybe it shouldn't have an NPOV tag. But it definitely needs more critical sources and analysis. There are many sources extremely critical of AIPAC, and currently (with quotations section, etc) this article reads like an AIPAC press release. Lots of the information (particularly quotes about how great Aipac is, over and over throughout the article) doesn't seem particularly relevant, or at least redundant. There doesn't seem to be any objective analysis of what AIPAC does --jacobolus (t) 21:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "controversy" section is currently larger than the actual description of the article. The quotes list both criticism and praise. It's hard to understand how it could be more NPOV. What percentage of the article should be devoted to criticism; 70%? 90% ? Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

I think this should be at American Israel Public Affairs Committee, because that is its title. --jacobolus (t) 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization of material

I've reorganized the material so that it is better serperated into appropriate sections. Since it seems that some people have been criticizing that lack of objective information in this article created specific sections that will make it easier to address the deficiencies in that area while separating pro-AIPAC opinions into their own section where they will not be confused as part of an objective description of AIPAC The sections on it's activities and goals and it's history needs more objective information for those out their willing to help with this task. --Cab88 13:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've put the History before the Activities, as it was before, which makes more logical sense, and cleaned up some of the language and links. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The quotations sections reads like a "slug-fest" between supporters and opponents, for what it's worth I think the article would be better off without it. Other than that it's a good read. --Uncle Bungle 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti-democratic

Given "its analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators" I think that it is fair to say that AIPAC keeps a close watch on said representatives.

Given that "its (Jew Watch) stated purpose is "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide."" qualifies it as *anti-semitic as a matter of fact* --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) and Exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is logical to deduce that Jew Watch is anti-semitic because it is keeping a close watch on these organizations because they are Jewish.

It is, therefore, logical to deduce that AIPAC is anti-congress and anti-senate because it is keeping a close watch on these organizations.

Given that these officials represent a significant element of the U.S. representitave system, it could be said that AIPAC keeps a close watch on the workings of the U.S. representitave government (democracy), it is, therefore, logical to deduce that AIPIC is, in fact, anti-democratic.

As a result, I'm still puzzled as to why this article describes "They (AIPAC critics) also say that AIPAC wields undue influence over Congress". It is obvious that AIPAC is anti-democratic as a matter of fact. This should be changed. --Uncle Bungle 02:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. Keep plugging away, Uncle.Bungle, you'll find an opening one day. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole... --Uncle Bungle 11:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By "hypocrisy" do you mean insisting on qualifying claims as coming from a specific a source when it suits you,[1] and then turning around and failing to do so when it doesn't?[2] Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I meant that keeping an eye on an institution is anti-said institution, regardless of wether you support the watchers or the watched. But perhaps you would perfrer citing a tertiary source providing a "quote" edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda when it suits you [3] and stomping on one when it doesn't. [4] And if you have a problem with my source for Iran's nuclear program take it up in that talk page please. --Uncle Bungle 16:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with your source; if you have a problem with mine, take it up in that talk page please. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get quite frank for a moment. I love Jews, and I am a big Jew-lover from way back. In fact, I'm 1/4 Jewish! Got a nice Jewish grandma, that I call my Nan. She is a kind old lady who would never advocate the daily slaughter of Palestinian people. My point is, hey, if you're a Jewish American, that is great, more power to you. Right on, Jewish-American! But if you want to go on about how Israel is such a great country and BLAH BLAH BLAH like almost every hyper-pro-Israeli Jew does in America, then I say, WHY HAVEN'T YOU MADE ALIYAH YET??? GET YOUR ASS TO ISRAEL NOW, YOU FRIGGIN' HYPOCRITE! Quit dragging me, a Gentile, into your silliness by lobbying MY government to fund your routine killing of the indigenous population. If you want to kill Palestinians, do it on your own dime, asswipes! Better yet, make ALIYAH now and beautify America by ridding us of your grotesque and hypocritical Zionist selves. Peace out y'all!

Wow, that's great, you love Jews. Does that mean you're going to stop vandalizing the article? Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
typical rightwing old-school Zionist BS, Jayjg. But let's lay out a fact... 99% of Americans are not Jews. The continued lobbying of the US government to tow a 100% pro-Israeli line has already had negative repurcussions for the majority of the people of the United States and will eventually have VERY negative repurcussions for Israel and quite possibly American Jews. AIPAC doesn't care about the Jewish people, they care about an already outdated idea. The point of the surely nutty rhretoric above (what you labeled as "I love Jews, Jews out of US" or such, is probably there simply to alert American Jews to the fact that AIPAC is hypocritical at best. Israeli Jews consider even so called "left-leaning" pro-Israel American Jews to be slightly to the right of Sharon. The basic message of the post, though obscured by silliness at times, seems to be: if you think Israel is great and worthy, then make aliyah. And that is so bad?
Actually, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 97.9% of Americans that aren't Jews? Tomer TALK 04:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regarding what you call the "nutty rhretoric above", since you authored it, why do you consider it nutty? As for my original question, it's clear that you continue to intend to vandalize Wikipedia pages:[5], so I suppose this article will unfortunately have to remain protected. It would be nice if you could contribute positively to the project; please consider that as an alternative to vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how keeping on eye on the voting records of Congress makes AIPAC "anti-Democratic". Lots of organizations watch the voting records of Congressmen. That's what political orgainzations do. AIPAC is interested in seeing that a pro-Israel stance is followed by Congress. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Groups like "Jew Watch" post links to some very absurd things like, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", whereas to my knowledge, AIPAC does not post links to scams and lies. So there's a huge difference between AIPAC and Jew Watch. That I even have to point this out is absurd. Jtpaladin 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Espionage

Can someone who is able to make edits please add "See AIPAC espionage scandal" under controversies. I realize that its allready linked to Larry Franklin but the content relates directly to the above mentioned scandal. Also, three paragraphs on the issue warrants a subsection, or, better yet, reduce it to a single paragraph and move relevant content to the above article. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Quotations

None of these are sourced. Where do they come from? Can someone provide sources for these?

Also, the formatting needs to be fixed. It's all over the place.

[edit] Excessive linking

An IP editor has just added a huge whack of links to this article [6] [7], all critical, and most from just a couple of websites. This would appear to violate a number of guidelines, including "Wikipedia is not a link farm" and Wikipedia:External links (e.g. "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other"). Is there any reason for keeping all of these insertions? Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jeffrey Goldberg - New Yorker quotation

Please explain the justification for the deletion of the following quotation:

"I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.” Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker)".

It is exactly of a piece with other quotations which display the perception articulated by public figures of the enormous influence wielded by AIPAC. Furthermore, it is germane since the Steiner controversy is covered in the article. I can understand if this quotation is false and never appeared in the New Yorker, but otherwise, I cannot see any justification for its deletion other than a POV attempt to shield AIPAC form unfavourable factual portrayal. Those who have deleted this quotation, please explain your point of view. It was not my original addition, but if you have a case I will not continue to restore it. --AladdinSE 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the quote is correct. I won't remove it again. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article is almost entirely devoted to criticism. I understand that all kinds of conspiracy theories feed on wicked Jews/Zionists, but why would a serious encyclopdia promote such views? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased, but am more concerned with the introduction and the general statements about this organization's aims. We read "on behalf of a strong U.S. - Israel relationship", and "in the best interests of Israel and the United States" and so on as if AIPAC is equally devoted to both countries and balanced between them. This is of course rubbish and one only has to read AIPAC's own description of itself to see that it is rubbish. "AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel.", "For more than two decades, AIPAC's Political Leadership Development Program has educated and trained young leaders in pro-Israel advocacy", these are accurate statements from AIPAC's own summary [8]. And AIPAC's list of its "current agenda": "Stopping Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons", "Standing By Israel to Ensure the Security of the Only Democracy in the Middle East", "Defending Israel Against Tomorrow's Threats", "Preparing the Next Generation of Pro-Israel Leaders", "Educating Congress About the U.S.-Israel Relationship". It is completely obvious that AIPAC is primarily interested in Israel's welfare and that their support of American interests consists mostly of the "Israel's interests are also America's interests" type of argument. Wikipedia's description is more whitewashed than AIPAC's own description. Surely we can be at least as honest as they are. --Zero 07:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah right, "Israel first". Why not both America and Israel? I guess that would ruin so many good stories... ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The argument that AIPAC's actions in support of Israel are also in support of America is a point of view. It may even be true but I have no interest in debating it. The only thing I'm sure about is that it should not be assumed in our article as if it is incontrovertable fact. It's an opinion and should be presented as such. --Zero 08:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

AIPAC has often been a controversial organization, and I believe the simple coverage in the article of the relatively recent public scandals and controversies gives to some an impression of bias which does not actually exist. Are we to refrain from mentioning that these investigations, resignations and public embarrassments occurred, simply to avoid the appearance of unbalance? That would be censorship. To justify the placement of a POV tag, actual inaccuracies, falsehoods and defamations must be outlined and proved, must they not? Let us begin this dialogue on a point by point basis, to resolve the concerns of POV. Also, if balance is what some editors are looking for, perhaps some research into concrete and specific accomplishments of AIPAC can be included? We already have a list of quotations of praise alongside those of criticism, but the "Successes" section are could use a little more specificity. --AladdinSE 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spiegel reference.

A reader at HelpDesk-l asked what "[SPIEGEL, p. 52]" refers to in the history section. Here's the reply I sent.

Frank, I think it's "Spiegel, Steven L. The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict. Making America's Middle East Policy; From Truman to Reagan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985".
The quote in our article may have come from a quote from "When victims rule" <http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/27govt1.htm> which has a bibliography at <http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/30bibl4.htm>.
Thanks for bringing this phantom reference to our attention, I'll make a note on the article's talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee> for it's editors.

Please verify, cite, and also correct the possibly erroneous "Siegel". -- Jeandré, 2006-01-15t14:56z


[edit] The function of AIPAC; and adversarial attitude in edit summaries

Regarding the differences in how to state what AIPAC's function is, I object to anonymous editor 70.176.62.225's Flame War attitude, personified in his/her edit summary comment: "Prepare for an edit war". This is not the way to approach solving a dispute. Nor are racial slurs, which the editor has also used. Now, the two versions of the intro sentence which talks about what AIPAC does, are:

The reason "on behalf of American support of Israel" does not work is that is is too slanted to present the POV that AIPAC pays no regard to US interests. The paragraph continues to say that 'It describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby"'. Therefore "on behalf of Israeli-American interests as it sees them" is much more neutral. --AladdinSE 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of sourced material

I have restored the material deleted [9] by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. There do happen to be analysts that consider the Reagan material to be controversial, and they have been properly cited. Moreover, the paragraph is strictly neutral and presents a rebuttal favorable to the Israeli perspective: The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

Paul Findley is a long-serving US congressman (House, not Senate) who wrote a best selling book that deals with AIPAC a great deal, and who happens to be well respected even by the man who beat him in the election... hardly "long discredited". Deleting his comments is a blatant act of censorship.--AladdinSE 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Findley despite what you say, is today considered radical. It is common poilicy to be respectful of your opponent after winning an election, I would hardly say he was well-respected after he publicly accused Zionists of virtually blackmailing the entire American government. Even so I could see how quotes could be used in certain passages of this article to understand the criticism of Aipac, however, the passage that I removed supported no greater thesis, it basically exists as a one line attack on the organization. It is completly inappropriate to stand alone as it does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)P.S. Sorry, I originally meant to say congressman not senator.

Here is the review from Amazon.com of his book They Dare to Speak Out, bold emphasis added:

The first book to speak out against the pervasive influence of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on American politics, policy, and institutions resonates today as never before. With careful documentation and specific case histories, former congressman Paul Findley demonstrates how the Israel lobby helps to shape important aspects of U.S. foreign policy and influences congressional, senatorial, and even presidential elections. Described are the undue influence AIPAC exerts in the Senate and the House and the pressure AIPAC brings to bear on university professors and journalists who seem too sympathetic to Arab and Islamic states and too critical of Israel and its policies. Along with many longtime outspoken critics, new voices speaking out include former President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, Senator Robert Byrd, prominent Arab-American Dr. Ziad Asali, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and journalist Charles Reese. In addition, the lack of open debate among politicians with regard to the U.S. policy in the Middle East is lamented, and AIPAC is blamed in part for this censorship. Connections are drawn between America's unconditional support of Israel and the raging anti-American passions around the world-and ultimately the tragic events of 9/11.

It is entirely POV to take upon yourself to declare who is discredited and for what reason. If a man can serve 22 years in Congress and write best-selling books that deal directly with the subject of this article and still not be considered worthy of being quoted along with other critics of AIPAC, then there is something very rotten in the state of Denmark. It's censorship anyway you slice it.--AladdinSE 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, show me a review on amazon that isn't positive, they're in the business of selling stuff. Do you cry censorship everytime someone deletes something that you write? This is wikipedia, people delete stuff when they don't belong in an article, get over it. One more revert and you'll break the 3RR.
I haven't seen anything that says "They dare to speak out" was a bestseller, and even if it was it is irrelevent. When someone decides to blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy that means they are not a neutral source, it doesn't matter who they are.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of reviews on Amazon.com that are HORRIBLE and extremely negative. It is their policy to let stand any unfavorable reviews that readers want to append to a book or movie. Yes, people delete stuff on Wikipedia all the time, and do you know what else happens all the time? Other editors disagree and do not allow the deletion to stand. That's something you will have to get over. I do not cry censorship everytime something is deleted. Only when they advance such directly biased arguments as you have done. The man served in Congress for 22 years! And you don't even know what he actually has to say. By no manner of means does he "blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy". He alleges vast undue influence of a foreign government on the Congress of the United States resulting in unbalanced American foreign policy. Regardless of your opinions or mine, he is a successful author and long time congressman and you simply will not be allowed to censor his remarks on AIPAC.

Also, you clearly have no idea all what the 3RR is! I suggest you read it properly. I made one revert on 02/28/2006, and one minor edit involving uniform Wiki style section and subsection spacing. To violate the 3RR, you have to revert 3 times in a 24-hr period. I reverted once, not twice. Just to show you how wrong you are about Wikipedia policy, even if that second edit was a revert instead of a minor organizational edit, I could still have reverted a third time on 02/28/06 and not violated the 3RR. To commit that violation, you have to actually make a fourth edit. As it happens I made one revert only.--AladdinSE 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually your exagerating, the fact that you reverted my edit three times without making any other substantial additions would constitute a violation of the 3RR, although looking back it was not in a 24 hour period. Also I'm sick of people arguing that anything a person says is relevent in an article by virtue of the fact that they hold a position of authority, or because they have excelled in something that should be irrelevent. Just because Gary Trudeau was successful as a satirist doesn't mean it is okay to quote him stating the George Bush Sr. is an idiot on Bush's article.
Also your talking about the reader reviews, I was referring to the professional review at the top, I have never encountered one for any product that isn't positive.
By the way throughout this argument I have never talked down towards you, you however have been extremly condenscending throughout this entire ordeal and erroneously accused me of falsities at every turn. I would appreciate if you showed a little common respect.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Your tenacity in holding on to the assertion that Paul Findley is still well respected and "mainstream" is just wrong. Obviously his rhetoric isn't as explicit as what may appear in Jew watch, but it is clear what his beliefs are. It is his position that America invaded Iraq primarily on behalf of Israel and called this "America's darkest time". It was an exageration when I said "blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy" I should of said "blame all that is wrong with a nation's government on a vast Zionist conspiracy".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You still persist in manifest misinterpretation of policy. You are flat wrong about what constitutes the 3RR, and I would lay off your 3RR threats in edit summaries here and in other articles until you digest the concept that 4 reverts in a 24 hour period constitute a 3RR violation. As for condescension, if you would reexamine your "advice" for me to "get over it", you may want to heed your own advice where condescension is concerned. An editorial review on Amazon.com is more valid because they allow readers to post negative ones alongside them. In any case, the positive review is not exaggerating or falsifying when it quotes collaborations from former Presidents and current public figures in Findley's updated books. You don't get that it doesn't matter what you or I think his views are or if you or I think they are too extreme, you may not take it upon yourself to disallow his criticism. Furthermore, you are falsely quoting me. I never said he was "mainstream", I said he was a 22 year US Congressman and a best selling author, one who moreover wrote a book dealing mainly with AIPAC, and you are flat out trying to censor his comments and saying he is irrelevant and extreme. Not gonna happen.--AladdinSE 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to go back and forth with this argument, I have asked user:Zero0000 to look the oncflict over, check your talk page for details.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI I already replied on my Talk page before your last post here. --AladdinSE 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to go back and forth like this, it is tedious and accomplishes little. I am going to add a POV tag to the section until the dispute is resolved
.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, none of the quotations belong here. They should all be transcluded to Wikiquote. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg, I was thinking about imposing on you to perform the transwikification, since you did it on the Sharon article. I'm ashamed to say I've not yet learnt the process. Truth is, I haven't even read a how-to page yet *ashamed grin*. Would you please do it, as Moshe only deleted the quotes section without linking to the Wikiquotes. I'm restoring the quotations section in the interim. Thanks.--AladdinSE 08:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's weird, I was trying to create the page yesterday, but Wikiquote wouldn't let me. Anyway, an IP editor did it for us, so everything seems to be solved for now. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Frankly, the lunatics who expressed their opinions in the book, "They Dare to Speak Out", are for the most part are disgruntled wackos. Former President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, Senator Robert Byrd, Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson, and Dr. Ziad Asali are nut-jobs with an axe to grind. While I agree that their quotes regarding AIPAC are appropriate and should be allowed into the article, I would also caution that these people have a screw loose and display hostility towards Israel. The problem is that some of these people were or are still in Congress and other areas of govt. and by that qualification alone should be allowed to be quoted in the article. If we were dealing with people outside of govt., like private citizens, then unless they have some qualified, special knowledge of AIPAC, then their quotes would not be appropriate for the article. Regardless, caution should be taken in who is quoted. I hope this helps. Jtpaladin 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links removed

I'm removing a few links, as they are not encyclopedic, not notable, or do not support the case they are claimed to be support. In particular:

  • this one is an opinionated couple of paragraphs by Hassan A. El-Najjar, apparently an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Dalton State College, prepended to a piece by James Zogby.
  • This link is an opinion piece by Frances M. Beal, who apparently wrote a few articles for the San Francisco Bayview newspaper in 2002, and who claims to be the National Secretary of the Black Radical Congress, an organization whose website appears to have gone defunct: [10].
  • This link does not actually list any specific actions by AIPAC claimed in the sentence it is supposed to be supporting, and only provides one statement by an anonymous caucus member regarding it.

-- Jayjg (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It is a little unclear from the {{fact}} request whether citations are requesting proving specific AIPAC allegations, or simply proof that critics allege them. Lokiloki 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've finally managed to get the changes and cleanups in. There was an edit conflict, I'm not sure if stuff was lost. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke

The relevance of David Duke's opinions on a working paper is unclear. Presumably David Duke also supported Bush against Kerry in 2004, but notation of that fact is probably not included on Bush's wiki page. There already exists criticism in the paragraph directly suggesting that the authors are anti-semites, and the inclusion of David Duke seems needless, provocative, and out-of-context. We might also find that OJ Simpson supports the authors, too... Lokiloki 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Duke's support was quoted in several reliable sources; that's what makes it notable. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. restoring it was no accident, for the reason listed above. Jayjg (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it was... I don't deny that he said that. Just as you deleted my reference to Jimmy Carter's opinions on Israeli settlements from that wiki page, Duke's opinions don't seem relevant in this case, and seem designed to imply that the authors are as grossly anti-Semetic as him. Lokiloki 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Since they've been accused of being as grossly anti-semitic as Duke, and since they support Duke's thesis, it's obviously quite relevant here. Carter is an ex-president, with no particular relevance to the settlements. OTOH these claims are central to Duke's arguments. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That is faulty logic. Do you have proof that they "support" his theses? Indeed, they do not "support Duke's thesis", nor, for that matter, are there any references to such. If you can reference that they support his "arguments", that would be great. Otherwise, it quite clearly appears to be an attempt to blacken their names via association. Unless we are back in the McCarthy hearings, it is disheartening to see such "evidence" here. You are also engaging in a common argument fallacy: A supports B, therefore B supports A. "A" is irrelevant here, and it's simply a means to discredit. Lokiloki 06:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
They claim that there is a pro-Israel lobby that is all powerful, and that it is bending American foreign policy towards the needs of Israel, and against the interests of the United States. Furthermore, they claim this cabal has made it impossible to get their thesis published, and is now working against them, as they expected. That's exactly what Duke claims as well. The fact that Duke supports this paper was reported as notable in reliable sources. I'm having trouble seeing the issue at this point. Jayjg (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is specious. Hitler supported abortion, but it would be completely inappropriate to describe pro-choice arguments as, say, "Pro-choicers argue, like Hitler, that..." simply because of all the additional baggage of Hitler. David Duke is known as more than an anti-Semite, but as a Ku Klux Klan racist: to associate the paper's authors with him in a similar such manner is aggressively POV. If the paper's authors specifically paid homage to Duke, or otherwise even referenced him, that would be one thing. But simply because his detractors make that association is insufficient. That several pro-Israeli newspapers and organizations made the comparison, just as many pro-life organizations connect Hitler to pro-choicers, is irrelevant and, again, specious. Lokiloki 07:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources tying Hitler to the pro-choice movement? Which "pro-Israeli newspapers and organizations" are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, the New York Sun [11] which was the originator of the Duke quote. It is a well-known pro-Israeli news source. While it might fit the standards of wikipedia's "reliable sources", it simply seems needless and specious to include the Duke reference, as it is clearly designed to associate the authors with him in an unflattering way. I don't see how it is any less relevant than, say, including the Carter statements on settlements to others who hold similar anti-settlement views in the Israeli settlement article (which you deleted). I understood your point about not including the Carter statement there, but I can't help but question when you assert that this roundabout association is somehow relevant here. Lokiloki 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Loki, it's clearly relevant that a Kennedy School of Government paper on supposed pro-Israeli influence in the U.S. was praised by an anti-Semite like David Duke, the PLO's mission to Washington, and a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is mentioned by the source we link to, and so it isn't original research, regardless of your view of the source. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(can't keep up with how many colons to include)... I never claimed it was OR, but that its relevance as criticism to the referenced article is questionable, not least because the criticism already includes multiple assertions, including those of anti-Semitism. To say, in effect, "look, look, that crazy David Duke guy also says similar things" is specious. Simply because A and B might share similar beliefs about a particular topic, does not mean that A should be associated with B's other beliefs, as this implication herein suggests. I do not deny that such references should be included on Duke's own page, but to include said references on the page of this reports authors who have never expressed any relation, knowledge, or association with Duke is inappropriate. Lokiloki 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say that Duke holds the same views. That would be OR. It says that Duke praised the report, which is what the source says. We say "A said X," and we link to A. That is how Wikipedia is written. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only does the article simply note that Duke praised it, but it's not only "pro-Israel" sources that have noted this. For example, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC interviewed Duke on just this topic,[12] and The Washington Post made note of it as well.[13] Jayjg (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough is a right-wing political opinionist, and the WaPo reference was to the Sun mention. Regardless, I do not doubt that he made the quote, it is just that the relevance is debatable. Care should be taken when associating a scholarly article published under the (arguable) aegis of Harvard with the views of an admitted Ku Klux Klan member. It seems a devious way to discredit. Lokiloki 08:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're failing to assume good faith here. If you can find other people supporting the paper, it would make sense to mention them as well. I didn't go out searching for Duke; rather, the sources listed him as the most notable supporter. As for the scholarly nature and Harvard's aegis, the former is debatable, and the Harvard seems to be distancing itself as far as possible from the article. Jayjg (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Harvard should be more careful what it publishes if it doesn't want to attract anti-Semitic admirers. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty low opinion. The inability to criticize AIPAC without associations with anti-Semitism, or its sad proxy David Duke, is disturbing. I have not yet read the report, but I try to assume good faith on two presumably very well-educated PhDs at two of the top institutions in the US. Again, the relevance here is debatable: Jayjg deleted my inclusion of cited claims by Jimmy Carter that settlements were at the heart of the PIC saying "so?"... why should the opinions of a US president, who brokered the most long-standing peace treatment in the ME, on a subject of international significance bear any less than, say, the opinion of a marginal racist on a scholarly publication? Lokiloki 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You're making a strawman argument here. No-one is asserting that criticism of AIPAC is anti-Semitic; frankly, I'm none too impressed with the organization myself. However, people are asserting that this particular paper by Mearsheimer and Walt, which claims an organized cabal of Jews has taken control of America's foreign policy (to the detriment of the United States), is anti-Semitic. It's not hard to understand why some people would view that as anti-Semitic, seeing as it's the same nonsensical conspiracy crap that anti-Semites regularly spout. As for your continual repetitions of the "Jimmy Carter" argument, to begin with, we're talking about this article, not some other article. In addition, as has already been explained, Jimmy Carter has no particular connection to issues of Israeli settlements. On the other hand, David Duke has quite a strong connection to both American politics, and accusations of Jewish cabals controlling American foreign policy. Jayjg (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in so late in the game, but the David Duke/Jimmy Carter comparison struck me. I think Lokiloki is right. If Carter, an elder statesman who routinely travels around the world on peace missions (and moreover was the architect of the Camp David peace), and comments on all sorts of iniquities and problems, if such a man can be deleted as irrelevant re the Settlements, then the inclusion of Duke's comment here is flimsy indeed. Its a guilt by association ruse, and unworthy of this article. --AladdinSE 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter is an ex-president, who has nothing to do with the settlements, and whose Camp David accords never dealt with them. He may comment on all sorts of things, but I don't see the papers running to him for his opinions about the settlements. On the other hand, Duke talks about the Jewish lobby and its insidious effects on American foreign policy all the time, and the media has apparently run to him to find out his opinion on this specific issue. There is no comparison. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The part about David Duke is *obviously*, *clearly* an attempt to discredit the paper by associating it with David Duke. It seems that the smear campaign has reached Wikipedia. Serious NPOV issues at work here.

Blame that damn Jewish-controlled media. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
At least three editors have suggested that this inclusion is POV. I believe that this topic should be marked as POV dispute. The subtle guilt by association fallacy [14] ("Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it") employed here is invidious and does not belong. By proxy, it also is "Argumentum ad Nazium" [15] ("In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general.") Lokiloki 00:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see two editors who have objected, you and AladdinSE. The key to deciding whether to include material is whether it's properly sourced and relevant. There's no disagreement about its sourcing, so the argument is over whether it's relevant. Given that David Duke frequently takes the same position as the report does, and is vilified in part for that reason, it's clearly relevant that he publicly voiced his support. Readers can then take one of three positions: (1) maybe Duke isn't so bad after all, (2) maybe there's an anti-Semitic thrust to the report, or (3) this is guilt-by-association; I'll judge the report on its own merits. What isn't acceptable is for us to decide on behalf of the reader that only (3) is the appropriate response. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The IP editor also voiced POV above. Lokiloki 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the main problem is the fact that it mentions David Duke, it's that the manner in which it mentions him is obviously done to discredit the report. To make this article NPOV, someone needs to do a little bit more research into the reaction to the report, and provide some more detail other than just saying "David Duke supports it, but everyone else..." There have been other people besides David Duke who have either voiced support, or made the point that it at least highlights the need for more open dialogue about our Israel policies. For example, Daniel Levy, an advisor to the Israeli prime minister, wrote in Haa'retz that the case made in this paper is a "potent one" and that "Israel must not be party to the bullying tactics used to silence policy debate in the U.S. and the McCarthyite policing of academia by set-ups like Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch. If nothing else, it is deeply un-Jewish. It would in fact serve Israel if the open and critical debate that takes place over here were exported over there".71.129.159.1 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yea but let's face it, the anon wasn't the most unbiased editor, and he didn't have any coherant argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


I think the IP editor (who posted above you and after you) makes some good points. Lokiloki 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested a while ago, the solution was to add more support for the paper. It's now been added; Duke, Levy, and the authors have defended the paper in various ways. What else is required? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A steak dinner would be nice... Lokiloki 03:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll pick you up tomarrow night at 8:00 - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I hope we are going to Smith & Wo's... Lokiloki 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Jayjg's rebuttal to my post above: Carter is an elder statesman that has traveled to the occupied territories on peace missions and who has direct expertise with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is more qualified then most to comment on Settlements. You don't see the press running to him for comments? I disagree. I saw him criticize settlements in Larry King Live, and there are many journalistic sources which feature his position. The Guardian Daily Times Haaretz The Washington Post Jerusalem Newswire USA Today BBC are a few that I picked out after a cursory search. Getting back to the point, The contested phrase and association, "The Paper has been praised by David Duke" is just so odd and out of place, because Duke's relevance is so tenuous. Of all the people to include, much less list first, are we to chose this racist former Klansman? To be listed as having praised the paper, surely he has to be a respected analyst or person of significance. On papers about Gay Rights, the media often quotes or interviews Fred Phelps, but not in manner designed to consider the qualitative analysis of his opinions, but rather to spotlight extremist, distasteful personages, and their very existence as a fringe group. This is what Duke is. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, he is by no means a reliable source qualified and untinctured by bias. His citation here in an encyclopedia article is unsuitable in every way.--AladdinSE 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin:
I agree that the inclusion of Duke is an attempt to negate by association and "poison the well". I think it is inappropriate and pretty low-down; the original reference to him was clearly a guilt by association tactic by a well-known pro-Israel newspaper. This fallacious argument seems similar to, say, referencing Erik Rudolph when discussing pro-lifers, or Hitler when discussing pro-choicers (both of which are frequently referenced in quasi-mainstream press).
It sounds like you have some good references to Carter and his capacity for valid commentary on the settlements. Perhaps my initial inclusion was injudicious, but given your research, I encourage you to include the reference in Israeli settlements.
Lokiloki 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I was asked to take a look here - if Duke's opinion has indeed been propagated in the media, but others feel that the inclusion of his opinion here is 'pretty low', would people mind if the reference to him was rephrased a little just to lessen the perceived 'well-poisoning' look of it? Something like: The paper was referenced as a "wake-up call" by Daniel Levy,[16] a former advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.[17] A Haaretz editorial declared: "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."[18] Separately, the paper was also praised by David Duke, the former Louisiana representative and white supremacist known for his anti-Semitism. Would this be a bit better? Ramallite (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems better, although I personally think that David Duke is not relevant to the article: it's yellow journalism. Lokiloki 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Better, yes, but I am still of the opinion that it does not merit inclusion, based on guidelines of reliable sources. --AladdinSE 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it yellow journalism? there is nothing sensational about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is... inclusion of highly polemic individuals as supporters or opposers of particular arguments is old-hat for propagandists. It is akin to including references to Josef Mengele (who published on abortion, and who ran an abortion clinic) when discussing pro-Choicers. It is guilt by association. The report was published by two highly reputable academics (to wit, Harvard and UofC are two of the best Unis in the world)... a pro-Israel newspaper included references to Duke to imply that the report was nothing but base anti-Semitism. Such crass dismissal and association is inappropriate for WP. Lokiloki 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that David Duke is still highly respected for some people, it may be hard to understand because you reside in New York and I'm in California, but David Duke is highly respected in some circles, not the circles you or I would want to be around, but still they exist. Mengele's supporters are far more on the fringe. I would say Duke is more along the lines of Al Sharpton, because he has adopted or at least pretended to adopt more moderate views.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hitler is still highly respected by "some people" and in "some circles". It is meaningless, he remains a discredited and reviled racist. Not a reliable source. Duke can only hope for the level of credibility that Sharpton now has.--AladdinSE 08:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I think the public views of Al Sharpton were once pretty damn similar to the ones David Duke used to have. Obviously us on the western and eastern seaboards know he is a ignorant douchebag, but in southern states people still generally support him. Look at the accusations that Sharpton levied at people during Tawana Brawley scandal, and that was even after he had become mroe mainstream. I really don't think Sharpton is that different from David Duke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And I think Duke is a lot more mainstream than Hitler as well as Nazis in general.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, you don't come back from the KKK, you just don't, not in America. Sharpton has come a long way since Tawana Brawley, but he was never a racist, he fell flat on his face for wrongful accusations of racism. Since that debacle, he has built up a genuine record of civil rights credentials (and this coming from a person who was never a big fan of his). There is a gulf impassable between the two personalities and political realities. --AladdinSE 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just kinda feel like all of us have somewhat of a bias view about David Duke since I come from a "blue" state and I'm guessing you do too, the kind of people that support Duke probably aren't going to be the kind of people who contribute to wikipedia because they don't own a computer (or read or write for that matter :), but I still think they are substantial in number).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But seriously, even in the red states, do you think the political establishment would touch him with a 10-foot pole? He's virtually persona non grata, and his limited public support isn't enough to get him elected dog catcher. It's just nuts to insert his support for the Chicago/Harvard paper. He is isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. It's transparent guilt-by-association, and must be above Wikipedians.--AladdinSE 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You've misunderstood the WP:RS guideline; the issue is whether or not the newspaper is reliable, not whether or not Duke is reliable. As I said above, there's been plenty of press around his reactions to it. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, your WP:POINT edits at Israeli settlement are hardly in good faith. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We are clearly at variance as to the WP:RS guideline. The issue is very much that David Duke is not reliable. The plenty of press you refer to has no qualitative analysis of his considered opinions, only shock value that this racist has supported it. Your "reference" is the right-wing neo-con New York Sun, and all they say is: "The paper has won praise from anti-Semite and white supremacist David Duke". That's it. Zilch analysis. No comment or quotation from Duke himself. It is a unadulterated case of Association fallacy, specifically Reductio ad Hitlerum. David Duke likes this paper, therefore this paper must be bad. You've linked Ad hominem enough times that such a blatant violation such as this ought not to escape you.

If you will please limit your accusations regarding other articles to those article Talk pages, we would be much better able to follow a productive line of discussion for each disagreement. My Israeli settlement edits were both (Carter and Stone) fully supported by my participation in two separate corresponding Talk threads. You reverted both while replying only to one. Talk about good faith. P. S. As in the Settlements article, I've decided to limit to one revert daily as far as this disagreement goes, to minimize disruption and edit war headaches. I hope discussion will continue. --AladdinSE 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some of Duke's reactions; would you like more? He also said he was "surprised how excellent it is", and he's got lots of praise for it on his website. Even the authors have responded to Duke's praise for the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
So what? Josef Mengele said many things about abortion. Should those be included in discussions of abortion? This page should be marked POV dispute. Lokiloki 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've unfortunately had to say too many times on Wikipedia, Godwin's Law rules all debate. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurray! Another New York Sun reference! It is all irrelevant, he's a white supremacist and anti-semite, it's a clear Ad hominem fallacy. --AladdinSE 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant; he's been quoted by a number of sources on this, and interviewed on MSNBC about it. The authors even commented on his response to it; it's clearly relevant, and newsorthy. I'll add other non-New York Sun sources for you. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


The criticism of the report itself is about 3 times the size of the actual paragraph describing what the report is about. That should be remedied. Lokiloki 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add more people who praise the report; I believe a head of the Muslim Brotherhood praised it, for example. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, there should be more description of the content of the report itself. There comes a point where inclusion of criticism and "praise" about a report critical of the article at hand is nonsensical. Since this section is about criticism of AIPAC, it is a little strange that now the majority of the content is simply criticism of the criticism. Lokiloki 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point. I suppose at some point it might become its own sub-article. Meanwhile, I note that the praise for the report section is longer than the criticism. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the addition of Walt's rebuttal of Duke's praise, "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world". --AladdinSE 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. The David Duke argument is a clear example of reductio ad Hitlerum, but it's worth mentioning precisely because so many critics of the paper have brought it up. —Ashley Y 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it actually constitutes reductio ad Hitlerum becasue the article makes no actual value judgements on David Duke's support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mearsheimer & Walt paper - move to separate page

It may be time to move the Mearsheimer and Walt paper to its own wikipedia page. It would probably be best to title that page after the title of the paper. I also just created an AIPAC category (although not its main page) that could help to associate these AIPAC topics together. --64.230.123.75 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. How about The Israel Lobby or The Israel Lobby (paper)? —Ashley Y 04:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
(rewrote old comment) Sounds good -- I would go with the second that includes "(paper)" just to be clear. I was thinking that the full title would be better but it is cumbersome. --64.230.123.75 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The full title (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) might not be a bad idea either. —Ashley Y 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hedrik Smith criticism

The Hedrik Smith criticism seems relevant, but the citation is extremely poor. The book's proper name is not given, nor is a page number, and this is an over 800 page book. Is there any way of improving that? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try to go to the library and find this book tomorrow or early next week and provide more detailed citations and details. I am unfamiliar with the book. Lokiloki 06:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've been cleaning up the external links on this page, as they were in serious violation of WP:EL. Many of them were from non-encyclopedic sources (e.g. blogs, conspiracy sites), and the huge number of Critical links violated the rule that "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." I haven't been through them all yet, and I've tried to keep the best links. Ideally we should have a small number of supportive links, and a small number of critical links, each from very good sources. It's fine to have two or three more critical than supportive links, but you can't really have 20 links in a critical section, and none in a supportive section. Jayjg (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite bizarre and POV that you removed, for example, [16] which is not a blog, but a link to Harvard's Faculty Working Papers. This paper is referenced in the article, and should presumably therefore be included. Please attempt to maintain some semblence of NPOV. Thanks, Lokiloki 07:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the edit summary for that link? Yes, the paper is already linked, in the references section, which is exactly why it should not be linked in the external links section. We don't double link items in both reference and external links. Please assume good faith, and attempt to maintain some semblance of civility. Thanks, Jayjg (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the other references, thanks, and sorry. Lokiloki 08:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia will be finished if "Hebrew Battalion" is not stopped!

If the "Hebrew Battalion" aka Sayanim [17] at Wikipedia (Wikipedians/Moderators), are allowed to continue to terrorize non-jews, because of their views, then the entire Wikipedia, which is already suspected to be a Mossad's front operation http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm will soon collapse. In the age of information, internet, blogs, etc.; the Sayanim will not be allowed to censor the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.112.83 (talk • contribs).

OH NO! a gentile finally has spoken out! What are us Jews supposed to do know?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One good thing about anti-Semites is that they can never spell, so they're remarkably easy to spot. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA official agrees with Walt-Mearsheimer Study

CIA official Michael Scheuer: Does Israel conduct covert action in America? You bet it does

For years – even decades – U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and – for Israel – worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. [18]
Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of. [19]

Michael Scheuer [20] served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the future of America". [21]

This is the opinion of one man not the CIA, your basically trying to imply that his word is unbiased by adding other irrelevent information about how long he has been working for the organization.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth-seekers can still use "Cabal-free" version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee&oldid=49909399 America once in the past, before 'Cabal' got here, used to be the Home of the FREE!

And here we have yet another of the few brave human beings willing to speak out against those insidious Jews. Strange how there are so many of these brave few.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Steiner Controversy

A link to the complete transcript between former AIPAC president David Steiner and Haim Katz was deleted because they said the source was unreliable. However, if the editor had bothered to click the link they would have seen that the page has a photo of the original Chicago Tribune article on the controversy over Steiner's remarks. They would have also noticed that the page includes the transcript that is completely accurate (except for the small inaccuracy of the letters "ds" coming up as "David Steiner AIPAC" each time, but this is a minor issue. The fact remains the transcript is accurate and should be linked to in the article since it is available for everyone to read.

Here is the link to see for yourself: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

I think it is clear that there is nothing wrong with this being added to the page. I would encourage others to read over the transcript and add more to the article to explain the situation even more. Walkerson 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is completely unreliable, regardless of whether it claims to have scans of articles, and the section far too long. PLease find a reliable source to start with. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes a section too long when it has relevant and informative information? Also the tapes authenticity is not in dispute by anyone. The original tape was turned over to The Washington Times and reported by many press outlets. The scans are legitimate and there are no factual errors on that page from whatreallyhappened.comWalkerson 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an unreliable source. That means everything on it is unreliable, including transcripts, scans, and anything else. As for "relevant and information information", that's your take. In fact, it made the article about a single conversation with one individual, rather than an article about the organization. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is how you add to an article on wikipedia, piece by piece, bit by bit. This is how an article becomes a more thorough article. Next someone will fill out a different section, but it won't get anywhere if you keep deleting things. The episode in question is very significant and that is not only my take but, that of the weekly magazine Forward as well, to mention only one source that you may think is relevant and informative. If we went by your standard of what is an unreliable source we wouldn't be citing any sources as even the NY Times and the Washington Post get it wrong some of the time. We have to judge each page on its own merits and the page I linked to has no incorrect information. AIPAC never disputed the transcript. IN FACT, David Steiner admitted to the authenticity of the tape. If you look up AIPAC on Nov. 12, 1992 in the Chicago Tribune archive website you will find the article and you can also look up AIPAC on the Nov. 4 and Nov. 5 1992 in the Washington Times archive or look it up at the News Library News Bank website where you will also find corroborating evidence. The information may be difficult for some to comes to terms with, but it is both factual and relevant and should not be deleted.Walkerson 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you must provide reliable sources; anything not reliable sourced can be removed. You can't just assert such sources exist, you must provide them. As well, the article is about AIPAC, not about one conversation Steiner had. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I gave you all the sources you need. All you have to is follow the directions. The Chicago Tribune 300 word article can be found in their archives to prove the first scan. The Washington Times has a 936 word article on Nov. 4 1992 breaking the story and a follow-up article of 736 words the next day. To repeat, these are available at the News Library Newsbank. As I also stated the Jewish weekly The Forward thought this was a very significant episode in the history of AIPAC and said so in a one-page editorial. This episode had real repercussions on the relations between the Clinton administration and Israel which is exactly what AIPAC was concerned with at the time. It is their very raison d'etre so please don't poo poo it and call it only a conversation. The conversation has some very interesting things to say and people visiting an encyclopedia should be able to read it. If you have a problem with style help to finesse the passages. Haim Katz, the gentleman on the other end of the line told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it." Please stop deleting factual info. Walkerson 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is true then why don't you link to the actual chicago tribune article? Instead you link to this strange "What really happened" propaganda website. I am once again deleting your additions until you can link to a reliable source. By the way you have vilated the 3RR rule.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would do a little digging instead of knee-jerk reverts you would see that a portion of the Chicago Tribune article is on the What Really Happened page. I have no concern with the rest of the site. I only link to this page since all of the information is fact and it has pictures of the original articles and transcript backing up the quotes provided. Please stop deleting factual information. Go to the Washington Times website or the Chicago Tribune website to see the corroborating evidence. Jayjg is the one that has almost violated the 3RR and you have come awful close as you deleted three times without even coming here to the discussion to discuss your reasons, failing to recognize the sufficient corroboration that has been provided, or doing just the least amount of leg work to see the facts for yourself. I am editing the passages, adding more facts, providing more sources, discussing it here. But you both seem to want to delete it no matter what and explain yourselves after when pressed. I thank Jayjg for at least coming here to discuss and showing some desire to discuss it civily even if he is quick to revert. Walkerson 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Walkerson, it's not up to other editors to provide reliable sources, but rather for those who wish to include the information to do so. Please find some reliable source for all these claims, then we can examine what is actually relevant to this page. Oh, and even it something happens to be "factual info" (as it may or not be in this case), that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts, and certainly not of transcripts of telephone conversations. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Transcripts of this information is available from more reliable sources -- it just takes more work. It is available as one of the source materials uploaded in support of a paper in "Journal of Palestine Studies" - specifically the paper in "Vol. 22, No. 2 (Winter, 1993) , pp. 142-168." The Journal of Palestine Studies is a reputable publication from the University of California Press. --64.230.124.79 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brave and True American Patriot, Justin Raimondo

Antiwar, April 24, 2006 "Two trials and a treasonous trio: Libby-Rosen-Weissman" The very brave and true American patriot, Justin Raimondo is exposing the Cabal which has infected American nation, relentlessly. But since Wikipedia is controlled by the "Hebrew Battalion" aka Sayanim [22], they only allow the Cabal LIES to be published. Mossad agents Larry Sanger and Jim Wales [23] have made sure of that. But in the age of information, internet, blogs, etc.; the Sayanim will not be allowed to censor the truth. Read Justin's articles here [24] or here [25]

And here we have yet another of the few brave human beings willing to speak out against those insidious Jews. Strange how there are so many of these brave few.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The website, http://judicial-inc.biz, is clearly the work of a paranoid schizophrenic who's delusional focus are Jews. The behavior of those with this mentally disorder are similar no matter what they choose as their focus. The attempt to spread these delusional theories at Wikipedia will only be met with opposition and scorn (as demonstrated above) which will probably but inadvertently reinforce his delusions of persecution. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 17:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mearsheimer and Walt" section

I've removed the "Mearsheimer and Walt" section, as follows:

John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Academic Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, published a working paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, in March, 2006 claiming that U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by AIPAC.

The paragraph itself is false, since the paper never claims that the "Israel lobby" is "motivated primarily by AIPAC". Indeed, the actual article does not make that claim, stating instead it is motivated by a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations". Moreover, the paragraph does not state anything specific about AIPAC itself. Does Luckylittlegrasshopper suggest that the paragraph be inserted as boilerplate into the articles on every single individual and organization mentioned in the paper? Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" paper was originally pulled out of the AIPAC article into its own article to deal with it appropriately -- thus to pretend now that it isn't relevant to the AIPAC article at this point is strange and it falls into a classic strategy mentioned in Wikipedia's no censoring policy, pull out damaging information into its own separate article and then orphan it. I understand that I could be mistaken though. I didn't write the summary you are trying to remove and I can't at this moment remember editing it, although I might have. Anyways, the paper does clearly refer to "American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organzations" as "the key organizations in the Lobby". There are currently 171 news stories that mention AIPAC in connection with the Mearsheimer and Walt story in Google News too thus this connection isn't spurious: [26]. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP editor who originally inserted the information was simply propagandizing, and put in a whole bunch of barely relevant stuff. It eventually evolved into a good article about the paper itself, which is why it went into its own article. As for the "summary", my objections above are relevant; the paragraph was false boilerplate material. I suppose specific information from the report about AIPAC might be relevant, but this wasn't it. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship by editors of reference to Findley book

An editor (al Siverberg) has just vandalized/ censored a book by former Congressman Paul Findley. Editor made unsubstantiated charge that Findley is linked with Holocaust deniers. Editor is exercising POV censorship of reality of this book and its revelations. Dogru144 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] outdated links

AIPAC's "Who we are" page has moved. http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html has been changed to http://www.aipac.org/whoWeAre.cfm. --aardfark 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economist claim

Why has this been removed? Sure, it's their POV, but it's notable nonetheless. —Ashley Y 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a notable POV. Ashley, what are your thoughts about the title of the AIPAC espionage scandal/Franklin, Rosen, Weissman section? Given that there exists a page entitled AIPAC espionage scandal I would have thought that would be the logical title for the section as well as the widely accepted name for that series of events. Thanks. ANW 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what they are reporting would be notable but the report itself is not especially notable for a news report, and since the conclusions are so hotly disputed it would be inappropriate to include it in the article as fact.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see how it was presented as fact.
The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is the one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right." [1]
  1. ^ "To Israel with love", The Economist, Aug 3rd, 2006.
It seems to be presented as an opinion by the use of the verb "claim". Thanks. ANW 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion isn't the overall tone of the passage.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the tone of the passage, so as to appear less as fact and more as an opinion? Thanks. ANW 10:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Economist is a well-respected newspaper (magazine if you prefer) that is not even known to be particularly biased against Israel. Their opinion on AIPAC is relevant.
As for the section heading, it should match the article, though one could optionally drop the word "AIPAC". Perhaps one could put in "espionage accusations" if one were concerned that the title implies that the espionage charge is definitively true. —Ashley Y 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "AIPAC" is redundant in the title of the section. The problem with "espionage accusations" is that at least one of the accused has admitted guilt in transferring classified information to foreign officials, so it's not just accusations. Maybe "Espionage investigation" or "Espionage indictments"? Thanks. ANW 12:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
AIPAC hasn't admitted guilt, though, have they? How about "Espionage allegations"? —Ashley Y 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New centralized "Israel lobby" and "Arab lobby" articles

I just added a link to the "See also" section but it was removed with barely a comment. The new article, which is still under development, is here Israel lobby in the United States. It attempts to provide an overview of the Israel lobby that is distinct from any particular lobby group (such as the AIPAC.) The term Israel lobby is used a number of different places in Wikipedia without sufficient explanation. It isn't accurate to link it to AIPAC directly. Also the AIPAC article is not the place to discuss the more general lobby. Thus the article.

I also created an Arab lobby in the United States. --Ben Houston 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYT quote

The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."[citation needed]

The citation would appear to be at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40711FD39540C758CDDAE0894DF484D81, but I don't have a Times select subscription, so I can't confirm that. (Sorry, forgot to sign) Ealex292 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that my school does have a subscription (through an organization called Proquest). The citation looks accurate. The URL I got is http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=956546371&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=3586&RQT=309&VName=PQD (that might be school-specific). I have added the Times Select and Proquest links to the page, and removed the fact-checking template. From the comment in the article, "this quote should be checked with the NYT because it's quoted on a lot of dodgy websites" --- I felt the abstract plus Proquest was enough to justify the removal.

Abstract:

LEAD: After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has become a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East. After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby ...

Ealex292 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, somebody has re-added the fact-check template. Unfortunately, the article is under copyright to NYT, and they've decided not to make it publicly available. Instead, it is part of the premium "TimesSelect" service. I think we should either take the date and link to abstract as enough fact checking, or completely give up on the quote and delete it. I doubt we'll get better evidence until copyright expires. Ealex292 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the substance can be verified to be accurate from the NY Times source, that's sufficient evidence. Cite the link, or better still the date it was published in print. The TimeSelect thing is basically access to newspaper articles for those paying for an NY Times subscription, it's not that the paper's trying to keep documents out of public view. Right now pretty much all editorial writings require subscription to the paper for access as well. Shams2006 07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The date has been there for a while. I saw the date, figured it couldn't be hard to verify, and did a little more research. Now to see if it will stick around a little longer with all the <ref> goodness... The quote itself is a two-part thing: the first is visible in the abstract, but the second requires access to the article itself. (I'm guessing viewing the article itself from the link is straightforward if you have TimesSelect.) Ealex292 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Institute under "successes"

There's an odd sentence in the "successes" section:

Martin Indyk former research director at the AIPAC, founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think-tank in 1985.

How exactly is this an AIPAC success? There is no sourcing tying WINEP's founding to AIPAC. Just because the founder of one institution previously worked for another institution doesn't mean that the second had any role in founding the first. Without appropriate sourcing, this is original research. GabrielF 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY was the following Nader info removed/censored?

The following was removed from the "Critics" section even though it is fully sourced and obviously critical of Israel's influence in the U.S. via AIPAC and other organizations:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Ralph Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" [27] [28] [29]. Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" [30]. Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he [Nader] said smacks of bigotry" [31]. Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" [32]. Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Nader where he discusses what he said: [33]. Also note that the YouTube video is a clip from CPSAN, where he said this. --WassermannNYC 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained on the other 4 articles into which you attempted to POV-push this trivia, it was a tempest in a teapot, and the only person who still cares about it is you, the person who is also obsessed with identifying the "Jewish lobby" and all the rich Jews in the United States, along with claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust". Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I don't appreciate your smear tactics; I expect better from an admin. committed to the principle of NPOV -- and PLEASE explain yourself more fully; your ONE SENTENCE does not justify deleting valid, relevant, and well sourced information. Yes the info was inserted in to 5 different articles, but you fail to add that they were all RELEVANT articles and that identical information is copied/pasted and crosslited on Wikipedia routinely if it pertains to multiple articles. Also, anything reported in the Washington Post and investigated by the ADL (along with other reliable sources) that was said by a former presidential candidate (a multiple presidential canidate actually, and well-known national figure) is not mere "trivia." I simply cannot understand why you keep saying that this is "trivia" when that assertion is a blatant falsity; the Washington Post is (as you know) one of the top newspapers in the USA. I am not "obsessed with identifying the 'Jewish lobby' and all the rich Jews in the United States" as you write: they are simply articles that I am interested in and seek to expand/enrich with factual, well-sourced, and relevant information (how many times must I say this?) -- also, must I remind you that around 80% or more of your own edits deal with Jewish-themed articles, many of which you and other admins. fiercely protect and watch in shifts, preventing other good editors from even touching them. However, I would like to ask: isn't the job of admins. to watch/police the entirety of Wikipedia instead of having 80% or even more of your edits (and the edits of some other admins. are close to 100%) on Jewish themed-articles? (as I said, this is not just you: many other high-level admins. edit Jewish articles almost exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the project, which you all seem to conveniently ignore to spend the vast bulk of your time and energy on Jewish-themed articles).
Again, please assume good faith, as you have noticed that ALL of my edits were not vandalism; they were all made in good faith in the interest of furthering the project of an OPEN and FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. I am very interested in Jewish businesspeople in the USA (and the other List of Jewish Americans) and American-Israeli relations, and this is why I spent all of that time expanding that list only to have it unjustly deleted by you in the blink of an eye (and hence my high edit count in regards to these particular articles).
As for your other smear: "...claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust"...that IS NOT what I said. If you had read it correctly, I wrote: "I see that we don't have a 'Category:Independent scholars' here on Wiki. Though I find Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable..." -- I simply proposed to create a 'Category:Independent scholars' (for not only Irving but many others) as pertaining to Irving's history books that were written independently of any university or organization. Such a category would also be relevant for any other scholar or researcher that has published outside of the academic system yet still have valuable and well-researched views on their primary subjects; this had nothing to do with his personal views on the Holocaust, which I immediately denounced (Irving has never written a book on the Holocaust exclusively as far as I can find, only on WWII history). So, if you would please stop misquoting me I would certainly appreciate that. Also, since you canvassed this over my own canvasses on the pages which I added the Nader info that you later removed, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste this response to the other smears in order to offer a rebuttal to your smear tactics. --WassermannNYC 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Economist Criticism Rebuttals (& Cites added)

Several editors have added rebuttals to the Economists claims that AIPAC and the religious right influence American foreign policy toward Israel. I wonder if this is appropriate. First, the rebuttals far outweigh the original claim in terms of content and, IMO, push the paragraph into the POV realm. Second, this is the "Critics" section: do rebuttals even belong here. Third, though many of the other criticisms are dubious claims or at the very least debatable, none of them include rebuttals. My first instinct is to remove the rebuttals entirely. If that is deemed too drastic a response, how about trimming the list to a summary of the original rebuttal, removing the latest additions. Taft 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: since a decent portion of the article centers around the debate over scope of AIPAC's influence, does this topic warrant its own section? Taft 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Taft, I think the rebuttals are NOT appropriate, and that they do not belong in this section. Mainly because it mixes rebuttal into a criticism section, thereby diluting the criticism. That portion of the paragraph was easily extracted and placed in the previous "Support" section. Since you have had no other response for the last few days, I have made this change for you since I was making other changes. Please move it back if you are not happy with what I did: I moved the text and made it the last paragraph of the "Support" section.
Taft, if you have access to the Economist article (it's a pay site) I would flesh this criticism out some and replace the last sentence, since it is rather thin with the rebuttal moved out and deserves a better statement of the argument in the Economist article.
Other Changes made: I found and filled in some of the CN (citation needed), put back some of Bush's speech which was missing context, and added a paragraph with quotes from Cheney's speech today.
Thanks, Jgui 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I also added meat to the bones of the Espionage discussion. This deserves at least to have the characters and charges explained; the previous version was inadequate. Thanks, Jgui 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1982 edit

In 1982, AIPAC was allegedly able to convince the US Congress and President Reagan to veto a French-supported UN resolution condemning the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to allow for the safe evacuation of Palestinians. This series of events caused some critics in the media to argue that the "Reagan administration could not commit itself to concrete action to stop the killing in Lebanon".[4] The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

Some users apparently do not know how serious this is, especially when written in such a manner it could be considered slander and/or libel. This is absolutely ridiculous, and the source is worse. It comes from the Institute for Palestine Studies and is written by excessively anti-Israel people like Cockburn. It provides absolutely no evidence for the claim. What you would need to include this paragraph would be something perhaps from the Washington Post that says "AIPAC has convinced several congressmen...", not this boloney. You would need a congressman from 1982 to make that claim. You would need something reputable. The idea that the entire US Congress and the President of the United States were all "convinced" is extremely serious, it cannot be accompanied by such a weak source. It reeks of POV and has no base to support it at all whatsoever. Nothing. It will be removed. --Shamir1 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus. Please try to adhere to these Wikipedia policies in the future. I'm not going to try to revert anymore, not because I agree with you or appreciate your rabid tone -- and certainly not because I appreciate your style of disregarding consensus-building procedures and repeatedly biasing Wikipedia against Palestinians and non-Zionists -- but because I'll let things cool off and allow other editors get involved if they see fit. Just to correct a couple things -- Cockburn is "excessively anti-Israel" in your opinion, but many disagree, and others have argued convincingly that the Washington Post is excessively anti-Palestinian. Also, nobody is being "slandered" or "libeled" in the quote above. Please in the future try to work with other editors to build consensus even if you personally feel passionately about a subject. Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg. Organ123 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That flow chart is AWESOME! I have never seen that before. That sums up Wikipedia to a TEE. What a fucking mess/load of shit! AWESOME! I LOVE it :) Cheers --Tom 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

A new editor (TruthSeeker1901) inserted a new section and three paragraphs on the Armenian Genocide. I have removed these, and left a note on this editor's talk page, for the following reasons:

1. All the text added is uncited. It therefore reads as if it is all Original Research. See WP:RS and WP:OR. In order to add this section, it must have citations from Reliable Sources: e.g. newspaper or periodical articles, etc. For example, your first sentence is that AIPAC has lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorating the Armenian Genocide - but your statement of this is not sufficient; you need to find a Reliable Source who makes this claim or at least show some evidence from a RS that this lobbying has taken place.

2. Text is not written to be NPOV - see WP:NPOV. For example the heading "GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM" is taking the point of view that AIPAC is Denying the genocide and supporting revisionism - which I doubt they would agree to. Or the sentence "The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail" is argumentative - who is "the Armenian community", who have they reached out to, who has not responded?

3. This "controversy" must be Notable (WP:Notable) in order for it to be included. Finding a number of WP:RS who discuss this issue (needed for the first point) goes a long way towards showing notability. I also checked the WP page WP:Armenian Genocide page, and did not find any mention of this controversy there. If this is significant, wouldn't it be on that page?

4. WP format for header was not followed.

5. Finally, it is strongly advisable to leave a note on this Talk page when adding substantial amounts of text, so you can explain your reasons for adding, notability, etc. Please leave a note here before adding these paragraphs after reworking them.

6. The text I removed is the following. If an editor wants to insert this text, they should rework it, especially by finding citations and rewriting it to be NPOV:

GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM
AIPAC, along with other major American Jewish lobbies such as ADL and B'nai B'rith have lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorative resolutions affirming the World War I Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the forced deportations of the rest. Along with Armenians, other Christian minorities in the Ottoman Turkish Empire perished (including Assyrians, Arabs and Greeks).
The Turkish government has denied the facts behind the genocide; the death toll; and that the genocide was centrally planned. Israel and the major Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have supported Turkey in this denial.
AIPAC has used its considerable clout in helping to defeat the Armenian Genocide resolutions (either in committee or from keeping it from getting to a floor vote). The rationale used by AIPAC is that Turkey has a long standing history of having accepted Sephardic Jewish refugees from Spain and that Israel-Turkey relations are more important than recognizing the first genocide of the 20th century. Israel also seeks better treatment of its Jewish minority in Istanbul and Turkey's assistance in allowing more Turkish Jews to be allowed to emigrate to Israel and the occupied West Bank.
The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail, as it appears that the "realpolitik" considerations (Israel-Turkey relations) trump the obvious irony and hypocrisy of Jewish organizations lobbying against recognizing someone else's tragedy. Many in the Armenian diasporan communities also believe that a motivation is for Israel and the Jewish diaspora to maintain the perceived uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust experience as opposed to other genocides (before or after).

Thank you, Jgui 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies and Critics

An editor recently removed info from the Controversies related to the Steiner conversation, since he felt that the text was untrue and misleading. I rewrote using direct quotes from that conversation, instead of paraphrasing, which should be non-controversial since the statements are directly from the transcript. Thank you, Jgui 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized the Critics section to improve organization. I put all the US House of Rep quotes at the top, and made flow into following paragraphs logical (instead of random). I added a large quote from the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, since it is a substantial and detailed criticism of AIPAC that deserves to be noted. I kept all citations and left most other text unmodified - just moved it. Jgui 07:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, you made some deletions and changes without explaining why. I left them all except for the following:
1. You removed citations explaining which Representatives were US Congress (calling them simply Representative). I added these back since this article also refers to a State Rep and it is better to explicitely state which is which to minimize ambiguity. I've left your abbreviation in the subsequent sentences since they have been properly introduced in the first sentence that I added back.
2. You removed a sentence with a properly-cited quote from Obey that I did not add - I only moved it in my reorg. You gave no explanation for removing this sentence so I added it back.
3. You changed the first sentence from "US Government" to "US Congress". AIPAC lobbies the executive branch as well as the congress, so it was correct before your change.
4. You removed properly-cited direct quotes of the Steiner conversation without any explanation. You previously removed text in this paragraph claiming it was untrue and misleading, so as I explained above I put in direct quotes which should be non-controversial. Removing properly-cited text without explanation can be considered vandalism - please be more careful.
5. You also removed a sentence and citation from the Forward; I assume because it was a dead link. Please follow the correct WP protocol, which is not to remove text and citation, but to add a CN to the sentence. I looked up the citation and added it back so it now links properly.
6. You also removed part of Stephen Walt's title. As you may not know, Harvard professors are assumed to be Faculty of Arts and Sciences if you do not specify which school they are faculty for. Stephen Walt is professor at the Kennedy School of Government so I added that back.
Thank you, Jgui 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to get back at you later. I made the info more concise and removed what was not very controversial. While he sounds incredibly boastful, it is not scandalous that some AIPAC members were helping out or working for the Clinton campaign or that they would be promoted in some way. Yes it sounds boastful, but sometimes you have to read it again and think of it individually without the other more controversial points. With the issue of aid, it is partly not controversial. The $3 billion stats is known and can be found on the website of the U.S. embassy in Israel. The more controversial and "juicy" part is the lesser known other goodies. I also removed the "AIPAC-approved" thing because it sounded odd and wasnt very representative of the content, besides the fact its not needed in order to deliver the point.
I did not remove any titles before names. Prior, it said United States Representative for each one, so I removed the United States from it. I then abbreviated the states from which they represent as that is how it is usually written with their name/
As for the "criticism" cited in the Forward, it was not that critical. He claimed that AIPAC's interests are right-wing, which he may consider a bad thing but that it because he personally does not adhere to right-wing politics, not because of the system of AIPAC.
I will re-add the title to Walt (I just found it long), and the Government part which is my mistake. --Shamir1 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Shamir, thank you for explaining your edits.
1. I vehemently disagree with your edits to the Steiner quote that I researched and added with a citation, which you said you removed large portions of because it "was not very controversial". This is a short paragraph - there is no need to be more concise. Please bear in mind that I originally added this quote because you had removed text fairly similar to the text that you just put back in (which you claimed at the time was "untrue and misleading"). What is scandalous about this quote, and the reason I believe it caused him to resign and the reason it should stay in its entirety, is that Steiner is claiming to have power over the Clinton campaign's Secretary-level appointments, implicit power over the AIPAC workers who will be in Clinton's campaign, and power over the Bush administration's appropriations to Israel. And his stated reason for this power is that "they're looking for the Jewish votes". The trimmed version you put in its place does not convey this, so it is not a suitable replacement for the direct, properly-cited quote. Please do not remove this.
2. I agree that the "AIPAC-approved" statement was clumsy and not well written, so I left that out consistent with your change.
3. I put back the US Representative (and State Representative) titles where called for. I think you will have to agree that just stating "Representative" is ambiguous - I don't understand why you think it is better to be ambiguous? Please note that their titles are only stated in this long form once - the first time they are introduced - which I believe is the correct way to do it.
4. I don't think it was proper to delete the Obey sentence as you did, since he is listed above as one of the AIPAC critics in the first sentence - we need this sentence to know what he is criticizing. Since you thought the Obey sentence was weak, I used a direct Obey quote from the Washington Post article that more clearly states why Obey thinks that AIPAC is not representative of Israeli opinion as a whole, which is what his criticism is about.
Thank you, Jgui 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
3. They already have a title. The first one says United States Representative and the rest continue with Representative. That is not ambiguous at all, especially since some have the state abbreviation. It is not ambiguous.
4. I am not sure about the critique of Obey. He says he is left-wing and doesnt like AIPAC because he thinks its right-wing.... I donno how critical that is. --Shamir1 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee_2210.html"