Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Working on this article...

I am working on it now and hopefully this can becoe a really good article and not a sham one with only reliable references. I have used the template for the U.S. version so any help would be greatly appreciated. Needs re-writing by someone better than me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. In writing this article it needs to be spotless, with good references. In doing this we need to hold dear the below three quotes:

  • "In all affairs It's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted" - Bertrand Russell
  • "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984
  • "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
  • "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ..." - Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[edit] Israel lobby in the United Kingdom?

Is their enought for an article on the 'Israel lobby in the United Kingdom', a bit like 'Israel lobby in the United States'?

I have found this information whioch discusses such in the UK:

First I moved this to the end where supposed to be; also archiving soon. Second, do you want to talk about specifically about Jews and others lobbying for Israel, or do you want to include just Jews lobbying for other issues as well? In the first case, you should just go for it and disambiguate from Israel_lobby, using The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as an example. In the latter, you might get some of people here complaining about various content, which your review of talk page and edits will make clear. You also might considering doing an article on Israel Lobby in Europe since there is a lot of interesting activity going on over there and it avoids having to do it country by country.Carol Moore 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Many of those sources aren't too good. (Don't cite David Duke, for example.) Stick to mainstream journals, books, and academic studies.
We already have the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre article, which could use updating from reliable sources. BICOM was formed a few years back as sort of the UK version of AIPAC, and the article is a bit behind the times. See, for example, this Jerusalem Post article [1] and this article from Haaretz.[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?
Most of these sources don't even mention the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom". Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more articles for use:

Thanks! By the way not sure of rational for sub-sections.Carol Moore 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Couple suggestions

I won't make myself since not familiar enough with source material

  • Should call it a loose network, not organization
  • Should put three items evidently on same subject under footnoote [2] in same paragraph to make clear same topic and same footnote
  • Since an individual is not a group, if Lord Levy is head of a group, say something like "Lord Levy and his informal lobbying group, whatever the case may be.
  • Include a history section and can get into influence of Zionists on Brit policy until and after creation of Israel; MUCHO info there and links to other Wiki articles
  • Use lots of different search terms for various topics of interest with any main terms since good stuff often is hiding that will come up on top if you use the right terms. (Like Israel Lobby and all of the following: UK, United Kingdom, Britain, England, Crown, etc.)

If I come across anything relevant will add it in. Carol Moore 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk} Carol Moore 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Absurd abuse of source

I've had to clean out the nonsense from the article. The article, as written, absurdly abused its sources - for example

  • It claimed that the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is defined as having had "embedded itself in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government. Its stated purpose is to promote Israel’s interests in our Parliament and sway British policy." In reality, a letter written by 20 people in the U.K. claimed that the "Israel lobby in the UK" had done this. This claim by 20 individuals in a letter is not a "definition", much less a fact.
  • It claimed that "according to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and , five key formal lobbying groups" and proceeded to name them. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, of course, has never even commented on the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom", much less defined it as consisting of five organizations.
  • It claimed that "Haaretz has reported that "a similar, AIPAC-style operation in Westminster would not just influence policy, it would also subvert fundamental democratic mechanisms." In fact, it was an opinion piece in Haaretz, not Haaretz that stated that, what the article stated was "The problem on this side of the Atlantic is that British politics lacks anything approaching the American system of openly declared political lobbies; a similar, AIPAC-style operation in Westminster would not just influence policy, it would also subvert fundamental democratic mechanisms", and that "So the might of Jewish organizations is inflated, conspiracies imagined, to fill the gap between the reality of a Jewish community trying to do its best for Israel, and the fantasy of politicians and prime ministers bowing their knee to the power of the almighty Lobby." and concludes that "If there is a Jewish conspiracy, it is remarkably ineffective."

This kind of POVing and abuse of sources goes against all Wikipedia policies. Shame! Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to help fix this now, incorporating the information, but less POV I hope. For example, I have put the Haaretz piece in criticisms with your comments. 81.158.18.147 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It has filled up with unsourced and duplicate material again. I will remove it; please, all editors, make sure everything in the article is properly sourced. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I can't see a single actual reference to a proper study of an organised lobby, or at least one in an RS. If I dont' see one in a few days, I'm taking this to AfD. Pending the AfD, I'm not editing the article, which otherwise I would, especially as it seems to have a slightly unpleasant tinge to me, particularly the 'financial grips' thing. Ewww. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a British MP, Baroness Tonge, that said that. It is not as if it was a statement by a Wikipedian who works on the article. I don't want this article to be biased and I don't want it to lean any or either way. I want it to be a good r3eferenced and educating article. I think it deserves that much. Not just, owe I don't like that, let's delete it attitude. And, it clearly states that "Although powerful in itself, thoughtful individuals recognise that the FoI and BICOM are not representative of mainstream opinion in the British Jewish community or Britain more boradly." If you can help, your input would be greatly appreciate, as would anyones. Robert C Prenic (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. Well, I'll hold off on making various corrections, including spelling mistakes, until someone produces at least a couple of references in a reliable source that imply that there is an organised lobby in the American sense at work in Westminster. If those turn up, I'll see what I can do to put all these statements in context. If those don't, this goes to AfD. Relata refero (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So far I see one quote by an MP not necessarily about a British lobby, a couple of articles about an advisor who said something about Blair knowing too many Jewish people, and an opinion article about the impact of Walt-Mearsheimer in the UK. Hello? Where's the evidence that this is a notable subject? Not only does an organised lobby not appear to exist, but a controversy about an organised lobby doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources either. Unless something new turns up in 24 hours, I'm slapping an AfD template on. Relata refero (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should this go to Arbitration Enforcement now??

This article is only a few days old and obviously Robert Prenic is learning as he goes. Changes made by an anon IP and others obviously are hostile and not meant to improve the article, only to delete it.

This is very much against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. If you go for speedy deletion I'll bring this to that both deletion group and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Let's cooperate here, not attempt to destroy others efforts, even if they are less than perfect.

Constructive editors please note:

  • Please find a good defining quote for your first sentence. It doesn't have to be perfect because we may have to get this under the on revert rule like on Jewish lobby (see talk page).
  • Also I asked for good quotes from knowledgable editors on Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States who are doubtless chock full of them.
  • it may take me a couple days to get to work on it myself.Carol Moore 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I beg your pardon? I presume the Arbcom ruling you mean is about if an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Could you please explain how I, who rarely edit in I/P issues, am failing to adhere to the purpose of WP by demanding evidence of notability? Relata refero (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been specific for those who may not be aware of this. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision which encourages civil and cooperative editing on Israel/Palestine and a host of related issues. It also creates a working group that intends to much more quickly and effectively deal with dispute resolution on problems that arise in editing articles related to these topics. Carol Moore 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC {talk}

[edit] Defined phrase and other changes

Having no self control once I get a bee in my bonnet, I looked through the list of sources above (and some should never have been listed!) and pulled out the good solid WP:RS info. I also renamed sections Debate and Criticism (per Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States) and reordered them. That Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) quote is pretty rambling and un-enlightening and better ones can be found.

If anyone wants to check them out for more info to put in the article, before I get around to it, the best sources I found were:

So let's control ourselves and not go running to speedy delete :-) Carol Moore 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Right. None of those are at all useful, and I did a search myself to find those. Two are about BICOM, which is a "lobby", but instead of being a political action group, like AIPAC in the US, is similar to, for example, the British Council. Besides, BICOM has its own article. The other is about a media monitoring group, for heavens sake! Are we not torturing the language so much that that becomes a lobby group? The final one, on the JLC, actually has a line about how BICOM does not take on a role like AIPAC. Not one of these articles examines the Israel lobby as a lobby. They discuss individual notable organisations. They do not discuss tpossible cohesiveness, or examine common threads in their activity, which is the sort of thing we have for political lobbies in the US, even when there are several organisations comprising that lobby. Simply put, if nothing happens here in terms of additional sources, I will be forced to AfD this. Please note that I said AfD, not speedy. Relata refero (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your dubious excuses for deleting an article are the sort of editorial abuse that led to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision. This has led, for example, to Jewish Lobby now being on one revert a day per editor, and only if you discuss in talk first.
After you posted some other person went in and made a bunch of changes which some editors would argue with and others would agree with them, but they certain prove there is lots on the topic and more to be found with research. Carol Moore 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Well, I rather think that was actually caused the ArbCom case was tolerance for incivility and permitting people with obvious POVs to edit.
Still. I repeat: there is nothing here that demonstrates that there exists an organized lobby, or even that there exists a notable controversy about whether there is an organized lobby. There is some detail about controversy surrounding particular organisations; that is relevant to those organisations; and any broader concerns about the effect of powerful backers of Israel on the relationship between Israel and the United Kingdom can be in that article, which would round out Template:Foreign relations of Israel nicely. I note we have no article on the Sikh Lobby in the United Kingdom or the India Lobby in the United Kingdom or, for that matter on Lobbies in the United Kingdom. For good reason: the UK polity doesn't work like that, and neither does the Anglo-Jewish community or the Indo-Anglian community or any others. This is an excrescence, and unless I see at least two impeccably sourced articles about "a unified, organised, effort to lobby for Israel in Westminster by affecting parliamentarians" I will indeed take this to AfD. Relata refero (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I didn't say so before, I think the real problem is WP:Idontlikeit. The repeated use of the phrase by Jewish media is enough envidence in any commonsense book to support it. But I will am happy to allow Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision to decide. Carol Moore 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Really? On what basis can you make the claim that I don't like the subject? Where do you get off judging my motives precisely? If you actually cared even slightly about the RfArb, you would note that the precise problem is judging people's motives. Please don't try doing it again.
And the 'repeated use of the phrase by Jewish media' you mention is fascinating, but not helpful. (They may be using the phrase developed in America to describe something in the UK, and so should strictly be placed in the other article.) Our notability criteria are quite clear about what procedures we follow. I repeat: either find a couple of reliable sources discussing the phenomenon or AfD. Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
First, it has occurred to me that WP:Idontlikeit does just what you said it does, so maybe you should go there and argue for its deletion?? People have used it against me a couple times too.
These mainstream sources are NOT reliable??? The Jewish Chronicle, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Manchester: The Guardian, BBC News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph?
The point is that if Jewish publications (being one form of "media") describe these groups as an "Israel Lobby" it certainly gives credence to the idea that there is one. Again, just common sense.Carol Moore 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
"The Jewish Chronicle, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Manchester: The Guardian, BBC News, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph " do not have articles on this that "discuss possible cohesiveness, or examine common threads in their activity, which is the sort of thing we have for political lobbies in the US, even when there are several organisations comprising that lobby." Those impeachable sources do not have articles "demonstrating that there exists an organized lobby, or even that there exists a notable controversy about whether there is an organized lobby." Can you say they do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First, your definition of lobbying to some sort of extraordinary "cohesiveness" is too narrow. Including in Britain.[2] So there does not have to be some tightly organized marching in sync lobby. The lobbying efforts described by reliable sources in the article are sufficient reason for this article to exist. And surely more and better sources can be found or will develop over time as more is written about this topic. Carol Moore 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No, the lobbying efforts described by reliable sources are not enough. They are not enough because they describe individual PR firms or Jewish organisations. They do not indicate that there is any cohesiveness of any sort, extraordinary or minimal. Why is some minimal cohesiveness, either in actuality or in the discourse of their opponents, necessary? Because otherwise this article doesnt need to exist. We have articles on the others; if there's nothing they do together, and nobody claims they do anything together, why the hell do we have this one?
I will ignore the 'more is written about this topic'.
In 48 hours this will go to AfD unless something useful arrives. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that we should quote more about coordination within the Jewish community and debates about how much coordination is necessary? That can be done easily. Carol Moore 08:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Original research

The article lead currently states:

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, as a loose coalition of individuals and communal organizations, seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom (Bernard Josephs, New Israel lobby ‘not taking on Bicom’, The Jewish Chronicle, January 1, 2008.)(Jonny Paul, Top British journalists to visit Israel, Jerusalem Post, January 15, 2008.) as well as a group of leading British Jews, Zionists and Christian Zionists who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.(Simon Rocker, So they say they’re in charge, The Jewish Chronicle, May 12, 2006.)

Carol, can you explain where the first two sources you have used define the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" as "a loose coalition of individuals and communal organizations, seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom"? I couldn't see that anywhere in those article, so please quote the sentences saying that. Also, I looked through the third article, but nowhere found any text defining the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" as "as a group of leading British Jews, Zionists and Christian Zionists who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations." In fact, I don't believe it even mentioned Christian Zionists. Can you point out the sentences in that article that define the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" that way? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not defend the changes made by User:77.96.20.58 to what I put in. I'll just go back to what I put in there originally and we can discuss that. I agree unexperienced editors are putting in things that can be challenged on WP:RS.Carol Moore 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Very well, can you defend your own sentences in the article? You currently have the lead as follows:

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom [3] [4] as well as a group of leading British Jews who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[5]

Can you explain where the first two sources define the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" as "communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom" and the third source defines it as "a group of leading British Jews who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations." Please quote the specific sentences in the article which define it those ways, because I couldn't find them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So we are agreed the articles are DISCUSSING the topic and only have to decide if the language accurately describes what is discussed?? News articles rarely include Glossaries that clearly define terms after all. But getting over a crappy head cold today so it will have to wait til tomorrow so I can review Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines for the umpteenth time - and perhaps some threads on Jewish Lobby where of course this has been an ongoing debate for two years.Carol Moore 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Just quote the sentences in the articles that make the claims you have attributed to them, please. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I also have to be prepared to argue why they aren't WP:OR and explain or understand fine differentiations between "define" and "discuss" and "mention" ... or whatever it was. Any cooperative help in finding the best quotes that are NOT WP:OR appreciated, of course. Third cold in three months -- and second probably was walking pneumonia - has left me VERY wiped out. So taking little break per WP:TakeABreak. By tomorrow hopefully can function on THIS topic. Plus will check out new sources, always looking for good ones. Like if in Britain if they tend to use "Zionist Lobby" co-equally with Israel lobby and if that should be in the first sentence. Carol Moore 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, please quote the sentences in the articles that make the claims you have attributed to them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There was objection to "leading Jewish individuals" as not supported by citations, so I changed that to "wealthy Jewish individuals", based on the citation, which says "That evening a group of them raised an initial £250,000 fund for pro-Israel lobbying and public relations. First to wave his chequebook was Poju Zabludowicz, a little-known name at the time but now an emerging figure who recently entered the Sunday Times Rich List with an estimated £2 billion, and who owns 40 per cent of downtown Las Vegas." So that's properly supported by the citation. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

John, it's helpful to respond to a section in that section, rather than continually creating new sections for your statements, as seems to be your habit - this habit removes discussion from their context, so I've moved your statement back to the relevant section, so it can be understood. Now, regarding your edit, the article in question doesn't actually say that the "Israel lobby" consists of that, does it? Rather, it seems to refer to a one-off event where some wealthy Jews raised some money. A one-off event isn't a "lobby"; please quote the sections of the article that specifically define the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" as you have done in the lead. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letter by 20 persons to Committee on Standards in Public Life

Someone keeps adding material from the Iran News Agency regarding a letter by 20 persons to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, that information already exists in the article, and the Iran News Agency article is merely reporting on what it read in the Jewish Chronicle, which we already quote. Please don't create duplicate paragraphs, especially using unreliable tertiary sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indymedia

Indymedia does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements; please don't use it for material. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell us where this policy has been established, please, so I can argue against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.197.53 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case jayjg is correct. wp:rs and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archives should explain more. Anyone can post anything. Some people should find a more reliable source to publish important material -- like those letters to parliament on Israel lobby in UK!! Such as the site of group supporting the initiative since once such initiatives becomes news in reliable sources, the originals published by those issuing statements can be linked and even quoted. Also news articles found at indy medias can always be traced back to original reliable source. Carol Moore 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
OK, thanks.. I can see the point that, unlike corporate media, Indymedia allows for the possibility of complete anonymity from reporters. I do think, however, that certain IM content (feature articles, not newswire, by writers who publicly identify themselves) are every bit if not more valid sources than corporate media. The anonymous/sourced criterion is also rather specious when you consider that most journalists rely on anonymous sources anyway, and we take them entirely on trust with regards to their sources' veracity. Essentially the criteria of reputability is, getting paid, and middle class respectability, isn't it? But I understand this is not the place to discuss this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.197.53 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up reference formatting

Converted all the references to news articles to {{cite news}} format, filling in missing fields. --John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghada Karmi blog entry NOT self-published

RE: reverted and reverted back Ghada Karmi, Intellectual terrorism, For the sake of free speech, British organisations should confront pro-Israel bullies, not appease them, The Guardian, October 25, 2007. If you read http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/about.html you will see this is an edited blog: "The site is edited by Georgina Henry, former deputy editor of the Guardian. Matt Seaton is the deputy editor, Brian Whitaker is a commissioning editor, Theresa Malone is chief sub and Mary Clarke is the editorial assistant. Richard Adams and Conor Clarke are commissioning editors based in Washington." Evidently they invite people to write what they want but will edit any content they find offensive. In fact they edited this article by taking out a direct link to an article because of (absurd IMHO) fear of a libel suit. Carol Moore 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] "Zionist lobby"

Please provide the sources that state that the term "Zionist lobby" is another term for the "Israel lobby"; this article seems to simply make that assumption, and then rather bizarrely defines the "Israel lobby" based on an article about the "Zionist lobby". Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I asked for this three weeks ago, and you still have not provided it. I will again remove the material that you cannot properly source. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First sorry for losing temper yesterday. Second the section below "WP:OR Allows Summaries as long as accurate" was my Feb 8 reply to your Feb 8th question. And on that basis I reverted yesterday, but given time lapse and other issues I forgot why. Have brought this up here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Clarifying_Summarizing_vs._Original_Research
While I now agree a better intro sentence can be found, I defend second paragraph. So I will quote all relevant sections of article http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140009 here soon to make it clear I am in compliance with: Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources - Using Sources: ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). As editor BlueBoar agreed below: the first OR tag (that in the lead sentence) seems appropriate, since the source does not use the term Israel Lobby. The second tag (the one that is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Debate" section) is not appropriate... the paragraph accurately reflects things stated in the source. So... I have left the first tag and removed the second. Carol Moore 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You obviously approve of the validity of this quote used in Jewish lobby:"Does he or she rely on classic anti-Semitic stereotypes in so doing: for example, by dredging up the alleged Jewish/Zionist 'conspiracy' to dominate the world, or by evoking Jewish/Israeli 'warmongers' who supposedly run American foreign policy; or through referring to an all-powerful "Jewish Lobby" that prevents justice in the Middle East." REF:Klug, Brian & Wistrich, Robert S. "Correspondence between Prof. Robert Wistrich and Brian Klug: When Is Opposition to Israel and Its Policies Anti-Semitic?", International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Yet you disapprove a summary of the Sewell article which also uses phrases inter-changably clearly shows interchangeability of the phrases in UK. Relevant excerpts from A kosher conspiracy? by Dennis Sewell 14 January 2002 It is not original research to summarize this fact. (Though obvious explicit statements are always best.)
Dennis Sewell investigates the Zionist lobby... Bicom (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre), the semi-public face of Britain's Zionist lobby, charged with spinning Israel's case to the media... That there is a Zionist lobby and that it is rich, potent and effective goes largely unquestioned on the left....Middle managers at Wapping, Kiley claims, know that Rupert Murdoch has business interests in Israel and would "fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble"... A tendency to equate anti-Zionism - indeed, any criticism of Israel - with anti-Semitism is a persistent vice of Zionist campaigners. ... Today, however, critics of Israeli policy are guaranteed to receive thousands of vituperative letters and e-mails. These correspondents take their cue from organisations such as the Zionist Federation's Media Response Unit, run by the former Labour MP for Basildon Eric Moonman; or from the web-based HonestReporting.com, set up by two students at the University of London who felt that Israel was getting a bum deal in the press....When one looks at the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain, one is struck not by their cohesion so much as their fragmentation....The campaign against Goldenberg nicely illustrates the perils of crude lobbying. Last June, after months of being pestered by Zionist organisations, Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, travelled to Israel and the occupied territories to judge the situation for himself. Shortly afterwards, he sent his foreign editor on a similar fact-finding mission. The result has been that Israeli policies have been brought into sharper critical focus in the Guardian than ever before. Hardly the outcome the Zionist lobby desired.... The truth is that the "Zionist lobby" does exist, but is a clueless bunch. After all, how media-savvy can such lobbyists really be if they allow their operations to be greased by the profits made from Shlomo Zabludowicz's mortars and bombs? Could any funding arrangement be better contrived to confirm left-liberal prejudices about Israel? Carol Moore 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
However, looking at actual summary of Sewell again I can see a misplaced emphasis and have made summary more relevant to this article and well within Wp:or. Carol Moore 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It's bizarre that you would lead an article on the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" with a paragraph from an article on a "Zionist lobby". Please provide a source that "clearly shows interchangeability of the phrases in UK". Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article uses the odd phrase "Britain's Zionist lobby", but describes, or even defines, it as "charged with spinning Israel's case to the media", i.e. lobbying for Israel. —Ashley Y 07:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First, looking at original sentence I can see it was accurate only to say Sewell uses phrase interchangably since other evidences of others who also do so not presented. Second, there is no lead sentence since you keep claiming any summary (of the many articles on this topic) that attempts to define the phrase is WP:OR. I've got a google alert going for a more precise definition and will look again at currently referenced articles - plus have some new search terms to key in. Carol Moore 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] WP:OR Allows Summaries as long as accurate

I took out the first sentence references to Jewish lobby and Zionist lobby because they aren't used that often, not really sure if really WP:OR per relevant quotes below. More importantly, I think the changes I just made to Sewell do accurately summarize their conclusions. If someone contested the balance of quotes (as I did in Jenny Tonge section) that is fine, but it does accurately reflect their conclusions. WP:OR does not prevent summaries, only ones that do not reflect author's statements and conclusions. Therefore I think the "[dubious – discuss][original research?]" on that section reflect a misunderstanding of WP:OR.

Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Start_with_what_you_know ...What we are about is researching and summarizing ideas and information that have already been publicized elsewhere....
Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources - Using Sources: ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source....
Wikipedia:OR#Using_sources - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: ...Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly...

Carol Moore 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

WP:OR allows summaries, but not unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. You seem to be quoting sources about a "Zionist lobby", along with a bunch of other sources that can't seem to agree on exactly what the "Israel lobby" is. Please find sources that are actually about the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. We have an ongoing problem with false claims of "original research". Per WP:OR, a citation itself cannot be "original research". One can argue over commentary, synthesis, or weight, but making phony claims of "original research" is merely a form of POV-pushing. --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, John, it's quite the opposite; we have an ongoing problem of editors abusing the original research policy to advance arguments, compounded by those same editors trying to pre-emptively defend their abuse of the WP:NOR policy by using phrases like "false claims" and "phony claims". Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can see Jayjg's point here. The source that is citated for the lead does not use the term "Israel Lobby" - it uses "Zionist Lobby", which is a different thing. Admittedly, the differences are subtle, but Pro-Israeli is not quite the same as Zionism (and Anti-Israeli is not quite the same thing as Anti-Zionism). Thus, we either need to change the name of the article to "Zionist Lobby in the UK", or we need a different reliable source to a) establish that the term "Israel Lobby" actually exists and is used by someone and b) defines what that term means. Without a source that uses and defines the term "Israel Lobby", any definition we try to give is going to be Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looking into this a bit more... the first OR tag (that in the lead sentence) seems appropriate, since the source does not use the term Israel Lobby. The second tag (the one that is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Debate" section) is not appropriate... the paragraph accurately reflects things stated in the source. So... I have left the first tag and removed the second. However, I have also removed the citation for the lead and added a citation request. We need a source that uses the term "Israel Lobby" and describes it as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain engaged in pro-Israel lobbying". Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Looking for better sources. People don't usually define what they think everyone understands and discusses, per all other articles quoted.
Meanwhile, considering current first sentence: The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying - This is where WP:OR gets confusing. The two relevant sentences this is drawn from are: When one looks at the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain, one is struck not by their cohesion so much as their fragmentation. And ...Rupert Murdoch has business interests in Israel and would "fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble". Since the whole article is about the Israel lobby in UK, using various phrases, why isn't this intro sentence summarizing those two sentences just a legit summary? Thanks. Carol Moore 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Because you've synthesized two separate sentences in order to advance a thesis not found anywhere in the article you quote. Please restrict your insertions to material that actually directly references the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom". Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Blueboar. I've restored the second OR tag for the same reason that the first is there, as it's the same source. Yes, the source says that, but it's talking about the "Zionist lobby", not the "Israeli lobby in the United Kingdom". Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Israeli lobby in the United Kingdom" is not a phrase, it is a concept and having israel lobby and UK or Britain in same article is sufficient to prove the point. Of course it might be easier to break up the uk and us than get a balanced article on these topics on wikipedia. Carol Moore 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
According to whom is it a "concept"? Carolmooredc? Please find reliable sources discussing this "concept". Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe i'm wrong. broke my arm last week and have been a bit out of it. In the spirit of cooperative editing, to make this a good article, feel free to explain what the difference is between "Jewish lobby" which is a specific phrase and "Israeli lobby in the United Kingdom" - which also doubtless also means to most people "in Great Britain" or "in Britain" or even "in England" for anti-british imperialists like my irish relatives. Carol Moore 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, I'm certainly not going to write original research at your behest. Please answer my question. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Like i said, it was just a thought. Maybe after i get the new smaller cast on broken arm that hurts less, my brain -- and fingers -- will get back on top of some of these issues. Also mean to get more opinions through WP:Dispute to help clarify first sentence issue. And I agree with Blueboar on second paragraph. I think Blueboar came in from some legit request i put somewhere before broke arm . Carol Moore 03:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Please answer my question. And if you've forgotten what it is, please read back through this thread, as a simple courtesy. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote: WP:OR allows summaries, but not unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. You seem to be quoting sources about a "Zionist lobby", along with a bunch of other sources that can't seem to agree on exactly what the "Israel lobby" is. Please find sources that are actually about the topic of this article. Any summary of this article can legitimately claim that it talks about "pro-Israel lobbying" AND "pro-Israel organizations" in the United Kingdom since it uses both phrases. Carol Moore 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] This article need some major rework

it needs a lead a body and sections. I will try to work on it later. == This article need to be deleted ==

Having read this article twice now it does not meet even a minimal wikipedia standard, just a collection of links and accusations and counter claims. it is without any encyclopedic value none what so ever. To make claims on British press that no anti israel article can be allowed to apear in papers such as Daily telegraph is beyond ridiculus as I can in 5 minutes find 10 anti israel articles in this ot any other Britsh paper. Just google Jenin or amnesty in the relavent paper. All in all this article is without any merit and should be moved to someone's sand box and have some major re-work before it can be placed in a public place.Zeq (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

for the time being I restored an NPOV segment that was removed. the segment seems as relavnt as other parts of this sub-standard article. When I'll have more time I will make further changes to this article. The other alterntive id to delete it as it is horrible right now. starting wit format (no sections) and a very confused (mostly wrong) content. I think I can enjoy making this article more accurate but it will be a chalanage. Zeq (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Only POV nitpicking prevents there from being a general lead sentence. There were sections on debate and criticism which the same person deleted.
  • 7 of 15 references from Jewish pubs, many of whom admit there is such a lobby; 6 are from main stream Brit publications.
  • Which ref to stifling media do you mean? If it is POV there may be relevant info in same article to make it NPOV.
  • I removed the first paragraph material about the cover because it deals with the editor's admitted decision to approve a cover, not the actual content of the article. I have seen several articles defending the cover and questioning the critics, so to include this irrelevant material and make article NPOV you'd have to make a whole new paragraph and include such quotes on the subject which actually make the point it is dangerous to criticize the lobby. So if you want it in, that's the npov way to do it. Carol Moore 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I've restored the obviously relevant material about the cover, since it is the cover itself which mentions "Britain's pro-Israel lobby". Also, your wording changes were stylistically awkward and failed NPOV. You have yet to even justify why an article about the "Zionist lobby" belongs in this article; however, as long as the material remains, it will be both balanced and will not contain original research. Do not remove it again, unless you remove the whole paragraph. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Carol and Jayjg. This article still needs major improvments. Zeq (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy on leads

Wikipedia:Lead most relevant sections are below. The most imporant part in bold. Note that it does NOT say delete every lead you don't like. It says seek consensus on a lead. Next section will be history of deleted leads in this article.

The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading. The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article....
Citations: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

Carol Moore 22:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] History of leads in this article

Below are the various leads proposed for this article, all of which have been non-cooperatively deleted by User:Jayjg. Wken I asked for some cooperative editing on the lead in this section he refused. Therefore I believe those of us who want a good lead, per Wikipedia:Lead, perhaps should consider him outside consensus and just keep reverting back to whatever we consensus is best?? What version do others think best?? (partial footnotes at bottom of entries that have them)

Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, as a loose knit organisation, is defined as having had "embedded itself in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government. Its stated purpose is to promote Israel’s interests in our Parliament and sway British policy." [1] http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12s32s34&SecId=34&AId=57686&ATypeId=1

The Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom, as a loose knit network, is defined as having had "embedded itself in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government. Its stated purpose is to promote Israel’s interests in our Parliament and sway British policy." It's leading proponents are the Friends of Israel (FoI) British political support groups and the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) [1] http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m12s32s34&SecId=34&AId=57686&ATypeId=1

removed by jayjg 1/27/08 without explaining why

The Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom, as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations, is defined as actively working to move British foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. It is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership and nor it is a cabal or conspiracy that "controls" British foreign policy or interests. It is, simply, a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles, whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel's case within Britain and influence British foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit the Jewish state.

It's leading proponents are the Friends of Israel (FoI) British political support groups and the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).

Although powerful in itself, thoughtful individuals recognise that the FoI and BICOM are not representative of mainstream opinion in the British Jewish community or Britain more boradly.

removed by jayjg 1/27/08 explaining only (removing unsourced original research and unreliably sourced material again)

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom [1][2] as well as a group of leading British Jews who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[3]

  1. ^ Bernard Josephs, New Israel lobby ‘not taking on Bicom’, The Jewish Chronicle, January 1, 2008.
  2. ^ Jonny Paul, Top British journalists to visit Israel, January 15, 2008.
  3. ^ Simon Rocker, So they say they’re in charge, The Jewish Chronicle, May 12, 2006.

longer version removed by jayjg 1/30/08 - this left

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, as a loose coalition of individuals and communal organizations, seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom [1][2][dubious – discuss][original research?] as well as a group of leading British Jews, Zionists and Christian Zionists who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[3][dubious – discuss][original research?]

jayjy inserted templates

jayjg inserted templates in these three different versions below

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom [1][2] as well as a group of leading British Jews who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[3]

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom consists of communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom [1][2][dubious – discuss][citation needed] as well as a group of leading individuals within the British Jewish community who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[3][dubious – discuss][citation needed]

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom consists of communal organizations which seek to influence media in London and the United Kingdom[1][2][dubious – discuss][original research?] as well as a small group of wealthy individuals within the British Jewish community who fund pro-Israel political lobbying and public relations.[3]

more versions as we tried for a good one

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, also sometimes called the “Jewish Lobby”[1] and the “Zionist Lobby’[2][3], is defined as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain”[3]. The “pro-Israel lobby” in Britain has been described as “the newest and least attractive import from America,” referring to the Israel lobby in the United States.[4]

  1. ^ Safire, William. Safire's New Political Dictionary: The Definitive Guide to the New Language, Random House, 1993, p. 120. “In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, ‘the Jewish lobby’...”
  2. ^ David Aaronovitch, ‘Zionist lobby’ paranoia is growing (Jewish Chronicle) London Times, June 2, 2007.
  3. ^ a b Dennis Sewell, A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January14, 2002.
  4. ^ Ghada Karmi, [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ghada_karmi/2007/10/intellectual_terrorism.html Intellectual terrorism, For the sake of free speech, British organisations should confront pro-Israel bullies, not appease them”, The Guardian, October 25, 2007.

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is described as “the array of pro-Israel organisations in Britain” engaged in pro-Israel lobbying.[1] Dennis Sewell, A kosher conspiracy?, The New Statesman, January 14, 2002.

last version removed by jayjg 2/28/08 - editors made no further attempt to create lead Carol Moore 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Putting back sections and proposed new section

Jayjg removed two sections we had previously: "Debate" which included opinions of whether there was one and "Criticism" which included criticisms of the lobby. The quotes remain in same order.

These sections were the most relevant ones drawn from Israel lobby in the United States. I think we can re-establish them with more category - structure - since there is a lot of WP:RS info on different groups involved in lobbying in UK. Carol Moore 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Christian Zionist's influence

I think you need to see this as it directly relates: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=105721&postcount=3