Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Topics to be discussed Discuss Mediation (special area) Should the current professions of cited authors be mentioned? (open) Should the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia quote be moved to the antisemitism section? Should the M&W quote include their discussion with Washington Post writers? Should the M&W quote include their response to the Leslie Gelb review? Is Paul Findley considered a primary source for purposes of this article?

Contents 1 Is "Jewish lobby" a neologism? 2 Should current (or past) professions of people cited in the article be mentioned 3 Mediation Notes

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

[edit] Is "Jewish lobby" a neologism?

Older discussion archived to Neologism

[edit] Should current (or past) professions of people cited in the article be mentioned

• So tentatively, we can agree that a brief mention of the persons current occupation would help give context to their statements in the article? Shell ^babelfish 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree, though I would add, or their most important or relevant last position or accomplishment. This would include "former President Carter", James Petras "author of The Power of Israel in the United States" but NOT former AIPAC employee Mitchell Bard unless we discovered he wrote an article on "the Jewish Lobby" published by AIPAC or he emphasized working for AIPAC in some speech he gave describing the "Jewish Lobby", etc. :-) Carol Moore 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ok - so then, any objections to my wording plus Carol's clarification? Obviously, this isn't a hard and fast rule, so if special cases come up, editors can still discuss on the talk page, but would this work in general? Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I'm sorry, but could you say exactly what the wording would be? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it would be that people mentioned by name (currently) in the article would get a brief description of their current profession to help indicate who they are; readers interested in more details can click on the links. If someone comes up that has a former position or accomplishment that is highly notable (President of a country) or highly relevant (i.e. someone's name is mentioned in an area about their book, they can be listed as the author) it may make sense to list that particular position or accomplishment instead of their current profession. Obviously, there's room for discussion on new people who get added to the article, but we can at least settle the current mentions. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I think that is a good start, but I do not think it is adequate. This is an article entitled "Jewish lobby". As such, it seems highly relevant to me to include information about authors who have worked for one of the "Jewish lobbies". Could you imagine a WP page on "Astronauts", that is not allowed to note that John Glenn (who most recently worked as a Senator), used to be an "Astronaut"? What would be the WP guideline supporting such a ruling? Jgui (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else seemed to agree that describing Bard's former position was unnecessary and could unduly weight his comments. Carol suggested, for example, that unless there was some source that showed Bard talked about the Jewish lobby or wrote an article on it in conjunction with his work at AIPAC, there wasn't a compelling reason to mention it. I also think that your assertion that AIPAC = Jewish lobby is a bit of original research; that may be what you feel about AIPAC, but that isn't necessarily an objective fact.

There's no particular policy that covers this in detail, but I would suggest reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial which touches on some of these issues. Sometimes its better to lead the reader to the field and let them wander where they will rather than trying to drag them down a certain path. Shell ^babelfish 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically in newest description of Bard Jgui added fact of Bard having edited a specific AIPAC publication. But obviously that was not acceptable to all parties. If some more recent tie to AIPAC came up, maybe then it would be more relevant. Carol Moore 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Shell, good to see you back. Actually I think Jayjg and Carol are the only ones who agreed that Bard's employment at AIPAC should be left out.

You questioned my assertion that "AIPAC = Jewish lobby" as potentially a bit of original research. In fact the article in its current version preferred by Jayjg has a cited portion of text in the "Definition" section: "The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations ... [including] of course AIPAC". And we have found numerous uses of the term in the Jerusalem Post where they describe AIPAC as one of the "Jewish lobbies" - for example "Jewish lobby ... organizations such as B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, and AIPAC"; "We didn't have AIPAC [the Jewish lobby in Washington]"; "Officials of AIPAC, the "Jewish lobby" in Washington"; "This time the Jewish lobby, AIPAC - without actually criticizing the President"; "well-edited newsletter of the Jewish lobby in Washington (AIPAC)"; PLUS MANY MORE my page here. And we have found Arthur Herzberg in his book "Jewish Polemics" stating: "The Jewish lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)" also here. Surely that is sufficient proof that this is not original research?

Thank you for the reference to the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial which I have read. I do not see anything in that guideline that recommends that an article about a group should not note when a cited author is a member of that group. In fact I think that my argument about the "Astronauts" article is an important anology here. If you disagree could you be more specific about what portion of that guideline you think is applicable here? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, if I'm not stepping out of line here, perhaps at this point it would be helpful if you were to give an example of what you think a reasonable wording would be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this - Jgui, if you don't believe the agreement above will work, what would you propose instead? Shell ^babelfish 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I have already outlined a couple of compromise proposals above which Jayjg summarily rejected. In contrast, Jayjg has offered no compromises other than removing all description of authors. So to reiterate: How about a compromise: keep the description Jayjg wrote with Bard's current job, and add the relevant description of his work at AIPAC: describe him as "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report". I then offered to Jayjg that: "If you think it is important to note that he worked for AIPAC 15 (not 18) years ago, then by all means add that." So do you consider this a valid proposal, or not? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I could as accurately say that you have offered no compromises that do not include listing Bard's 15-18 year old job. We simply do not describe people on Wikipedia by things they did decades ago, and singling this specific job out is a violation of WP:NPOV and a classic example of poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are wrong - we DO describe people in Wikipedia articles by things they did years ago, when the things they did years ago are the subject of the article we are writing. And it isn't just WP that does this: all encyclopedias and journalists do this, as a bit of thought and Nagle's example below shows. Jgui (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I support both proposals above. Also just noticed CasualObserver's comments on Bard; his current pro-Israel activism more relevant. Why not describe Bard thusly Mitchell Bard, director of the pro-Israel organization American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)... Carol Moore 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't have a strong position about this. We probably should follow journalistic practice for identification of op-ed writers. What does the AP Style Guide say? --John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the AP style guide has to say or have any other thoughts on how to resolve this? Shell ^babelfish 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My copy is in storage. Anyone have one handy? For some good examples of the hard cases in occupational citations, see this New York Times story: [1]. This one is useful because it's about people whose notability is in the past. "Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who was forced out in 2006 after three tumultuous years..." "Karl Rove, a principal target of many of Mr. McClellan’s charges and the former deputy chief of staff for President Bush, reacted immediately on Tuesday night. Speaking on Fox News, where he is now a commentator, Mr. Rove said...". The line "... leaking the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson", is unusual because the context of the sentence is in the past, and so the occupational title is given as if current. --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a copy of the Guide. But I would be willing to bet that the guide would state that citations of individuals should be consistent not only with their current jobs, but should also be relevant to the article that is being written. So in the example you gave, an article about McClellan and Rove in the White House notes their past working relationship with each other, and the titles they held at that time that they both worked in the White House. And an article about "Astronauts" notes whether the individuals who are quoted used to be astronauts, regardless of their current jobs. And an article about the "Jewish lobby" by extension should discuss those quoted authors who used to work for some component of the Jewish lobby. Which my proposed sentence: "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report" would achieve. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments have made me see that it is more relevant. Though it would be good to see who else worked for pro or con organizations and certainly opens the door for others to do that. Carol Moore 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah, but the style guide doesn't suggest mentioning things they did 16 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, so what page of what style guide are you referring to, that says to never mention anything someone did more than fifteen years ago? And the point that you ignored, is that a style guide WOULD suggest mentioning things from 16 years ago, if the things that occurred 16 years ago are the subject of the article being written. Is that clear now - could you please respond to that point? Jgui (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who was "willing to bet that the guide would state that citations of individuals should be consistent not only with their current jobs, but should also be relevant to the article that is being written." Could you quote the guide on that? As for the subject of the article, it's the "Jewish lobby", not AIPAC's Near East Report, last I checked. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, you left out my statement that I didn't have a copy of the guidebook - but are you actually questioning that a citation should be relevant to the article that is being written? As for the subject of the article, it is the "Jewish lobby", and it has been shown that AIPAC is considered to be part of that Jewish lobby by many RS. Bard was a paid employee of the Jewish lobby AIPAC. If you want to mention AIPAC but leave out the Near East Report for some reason, then please suggest that change below. Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this sort of thing is an editorial decisions editors must make together. If everyone else doesn't have a problem with it but one editor is committed to reverting it til the cows come home, then we should drop it in mediation and those who want it should bring it to another forum. We've gone back and forth on this one for at least 6 weeks. I don't think Jayjg's going to change his mind. There are other things on the list he might be - or already has been - more flexible on we should dispense with. IMHO :-) Carol Moore 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Can I get everyone to point out exactly what they think the wording of the sentence should be? And Jayjg, could you be more specific about why you feel giving the former employment will poison the well and what the style guide does say about how to handle these situations? Maybe its been a long time since I've used the guide, but I thought it gave how it should be worded, capitalized, spelled but not much when it should be used? Shell ^babelfish 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the inclusion is to have the sentence say, in effect, "Bard says the term Jewish lobby is inaccurate, but you can discount what he says, because he was employed by the Jewish lobby, so he would say that, wouldn't he?" Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is offensive to pretend to ascribe a nefarious "intent" to another editor, even if you then remove it two and a half hours later as you have just done HERE. All that the inclusion states is that the person making the statement used to be employed by AIPAC. The implication of that is left to the reader - his experience working at a Jewish lobby could just as easily imply a greater knowledge and therefore greater accuracy as it could imply a lesser accuracy - and it could equally imply no difference at all. My actual "intent" is to accurately state the facts, and nothing more. Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, thank you for your request. I will repeat the text I suggested above. Please note that I am fully open to reasonable changes to this description - I am only opposed to deleting it entirely. Jgui (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you refuse to consider any description that does not refer to the job he held 16-18 years ago? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am tired of you deleting everything I add. Please do not do it again - that is all I am asking. If you think you can improve what I have written, then by all means do so - THAT is collaboration, and THAT is how WP is supposed to work. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed description:

• "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report"

Support, Jgui (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support if reads more accurate: "Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and a former editor of AIPAC's Near East Report newsletter." (Note: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise redirects to JVL.) Carol Moore 14:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I would be fine with your suggested changes (I don't think "a" and "newsletter" should be bold). Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to jump in with further discussion? Shell ^babelfish 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are no more comments on this section then, I'm going to consider this closed and get us started on another issue. Shell ^babelfish 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Notes

• Last call; if anyone has any issues not already in the box on top that they think should be part of mediation, please let me know. Shell ^babelfish 03:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been available for several days; my house (or the general area) got hit by lightning and an unprotected phone cord fried my DSL modem. Everything got taken care of today, so short another natural disaster, I don't anticipate any other breaks in my ability to be here. Thanks for being patient. Shell ^babelfish 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In the ‘topics to discuss’ box is: Is the Israel Handbook, by Dave Winter, (1999), ISBN 0658003682, pg 819 an appropriate source for this article? Since this was usage of the term to help determine if Jewish lobby was a NEO, which was not answered then and now is an area to side-step, and since that page (accessed Feb29, but not copied at the time) is no longer available, I request that it be deleted, if there are no objections. My Paul Findley question is still valid. I also have some other things previously brought up and archived, re:NEO, that I would like to bring up again outside of and side-stepping the NEO argument. Please let me know when would be appropriate. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that you no longer wish to include anything from the Israel Handbook in the article? I just want to check, because agreeing to bypass the WP:NEO discussion and deal with issues directly isn't the same as saying that all sources are now usable in the article -- if there's any contention, its still bes to discuss the source and make sure there's no specific concerns about it. If you have other issues, please let me know what they are - I'd like to try to get everything in the box up top so everyone is sure what we'll cover and we don't accidentally miss anything in all the discussion. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, the specific words related to Jewish lobby are mysteriously gone from the ether, since I noted them on Wikipedia. We now have no words to discuss, (unless somebody knows how to retrieve them or has the book {help?}) so what do I do? Unless, of course, you or others see something I don't. Yes, there are concerns about it, but I noted these relative to WP:NEO, which you want to side-step so we can move on. Inquisitively, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say "gone from the ether" do you mean they were archived somewhere or reverted - if so, they're still in history somewhere. However, if you don't even have the source, then its probably okay to wait until someone does before worrying about whether or not something belongs in the article. If the only point was defending the article against WP:NEO and the text wouldn't belong in the article otherwise, again, probably no need to discuss it. Shell ^babelfish 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shell, jgui's most recent edits to the article consisted of quite a few changes. Would it make sense to list them all here as issues to discuss? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. While I don't want this to become the only place that issues get worked out, until everyone is more comfortable that things can be worked out amongst yourselves on the talk of the article, we can continue to add things here. Shell ^babelfish 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer I did that, or do you think it would be better to let jgui to express his proposals in the wording he deems most appropriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, so if I want to make any change to the Jewish lobby page, then it has to be run through mediation and approved by Jayjg? Can I ask where this rule comes from? Cheers, Jgui (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, but I think its clear that right now, this group isn't very effective on working out issues. Jayjg has some concerns with the content you added and he'd like to discuss that. Since working things out on the talk page hasn't been, well, working, he's come here. This is not an indication that you shouldn't edit the article, that you have to get approval or anything of the sort.

Take a few deep breaths - another editor wanting to discuss your edits isn't a bad thing. Every writer has an editor or two who looks at their work and helps improve it - Wikipedia is just a bit strange in having an army of editors who all try to work together on articles :) Shell ^babelfish 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what new? edits you are talking about above, but can we possibly settle issues already on the "Topics to be discussed" list before starting new ones? (Or if these are issues that arose above can they be added to bottom of list?) I think they'll be quick and provide the feeling of progress. Thanks :-) Carol Moore 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Honestly, I'm not sure either, though it was apparently some changes in a set of edits made by Jgui. I do plan on giving precedence to those things already on the list and hopefully everyone will get comfortable with working things out amongst yourselves so that discussion can move back to the talk page and work productively.

Shell, I propose that the next subject to be considered is to return to the discussion of the first Walt and Mearsheimer quote, in the section HERE, but not including the subsections which were talking about tangential issues. I think this would be a good one to choose since it is similar to the writer citation discussion we were having in that it involves a difference of opinion about how to apply WP policies. This will allow us to discuss those policies and hopefully get your input, which should be more productive than simply discussing opinions about what is "better". Furthermore, that discussion was fairly far along, and at the time it was archived I had made a compromise suggestion and asked questions that were not fully explored. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the article talk page, the meaning of the term may be in the process of changing. With the establishment of J Street, a new Washington-based Jewish lobbying organization somewhat opposed to AIPAC, the terms "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" now have some political distance between them. Newsweek and Arutz Sheva refer to J Street as a Jewish lobby, just as a routine identification, as do other news media. There have been many news articles in this area in recent weeks, because it's related to the Presidential election. J Street has been successful in getting McCain to reject the endorsement of John Hagee, a (very) right-wing Christian pastor, and has raised the issue that AIPAC has questionable allies among the extreme neocons. We'll see this unfold as the election season progresses. The article probably should have some coverage in this area, but it's early yet. --John Nagle (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)