Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/current professions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Should the current professions of cited authors be mentioned?

  • Definition Section: This part of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia about the "Jewish lobby" was inserted ONLY to bolster calling this the “descriptive” section. Now that it is called the definition section it is irrelevant and belongs in antisemitism section.
The assumption, however, that Jews have a disproportionate power and influence over decision making is what transforms a descriptive reality about politics to an antisemitic argument about Jewish power."
  • Criticism Section: “Mitchell Bard, director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), should also be described as a former editor of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee weekly newsletter to make clear his views or even biases.

Carol Moore 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

We have links to their biographies, so there's no need for long descriptions of individuals, and in particular there's no need for poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then you must agree when I ask to delete the following description of Bard who is linked, right? Let’s be consistent! Mitchell Bard - delete - director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) Carol Moore 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Sure, why not? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Removing short descriptions of cited authors is not the solution - we are not writing an encyclopedia for Jayjg, we are writing an encyclopedia for the average reader who may not know who Bard, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc. are. The descriptions of all of these authors should be in the article. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no problem with short descriptions, but, as I pointed out, there is a problem with long ones, which is what Carol was suggesting, as a means of poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I had two commonsense suggestions: Mention which Universities W&M teach at and mention that Bard used to work for AIPAC. The latter is hardly poisioning the well and is hardly irrelevant in an article where some call the Jewish Lobby AIPAC. In fact, I think we might investigate some of the other sources to see if they have too. Carol Moore 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
LOL! We should mention that 18 years ago he edited an AIPAC published newsletter, rather than listing the place he's worked for the last half-decade, or the 18 books he's written, or his Ph.D. in political science from UCLA? That's a good one, I actually did laugh out loud. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
People who used to work in organizations that are in line with their beliefs may still have ties, get financial and other support. Carol Moore 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
18 years ago??? Please stop filling this page with conspiratorial speculation. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jay that we have to be careful not to poison the well, and that this verges on it. On the other hand, it's rather strange in an article about the "Jewish lobby" not to mention a source's history with AIPAC. Jay asks why this would be any more relevant than more recent employment or his PhD from UCLA. Well, because this isn't an article about Jewish Virtual Library or UCLA.--G-Dett (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI this is a very low priority on my list right now, in mediation or in the article. It's something that would become relevant if, for example, it was found Bard or any source was still working closely with any major lobbying group, but their views were presented in such a way to make them look neutral. Same goes for people who use the phrase in critical, non-antisemitic way. It'd not an excuse to boot the quote, only to balance it with relevant info. It's an editorial judgment issue, like whether or not to use Cesarani quote. Carol Moore 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I agree poisoning is poor practice, but not including an easily definable link between Bard and 'the lobby' (part of which we are discussing) is like having the fox guarding the henhouse and not letting readers know. Yes, it is low priority at this point. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
When we move the Mitchell Bard article to Mitchell Bard (former AIPAC employee) let me know. Until then, I think it's probably better to abide by WP:NPOV, avoid poisoning the well, and refer to his current job, not where he worked 18 years ago. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bard's work at AIPAC is listed in the second paragraph in his online bio at his current employer here, so it is clearly prominent in his experience. And it is relevant due to his writing about the "Jewish lobby" having worked at a "Jewish lobby". How about a compromise: keep the description you want for his current job, and add the relevant desccription 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,". And of course keep the descriptions of the academics M&W. Jgui (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you consider AIPAC to be a "Jewish lobby", of course. In any event, "former editor" misrepresents, since "former" in this case means 18 years ago. No, I'm afraid poisoning the well is simply not on. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, it isn't me - we have numerous articles (including many in the Jerusalem Post) referring to AIPAC as the "Jewish lobby". It is clear that Bard doesn't consider it poisoning the well to refer to his history at AIPAC, in fact he seems rather proud of it based on the prominence given on his online biography that I cited here.
Jayjg, I just offered a compromise of including all of your preferred text, with the addition of text from his online biography, but you rejected it. So are you stating that the only text you will accept is the text exactly as you have written it, and you are completely unwilling to compromise? Jgui (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jgui, when the only issue being debated here is whether or not to include the fact that he worked for AIPAC 18 years ago, it's rather disingenuous to claim that including that information is a "compromise". It's also disingenuous to claim that "Bard doesn't consider it poisoning the well to refer to his history at AIPAC" - Bard is not the one writing the article, nor is he the one trying to convince the reader to discount what he says by stating he worked for AIPAC. In addition, "All my preferred text" is, in fact, nothing, since I don't think we need to describe these people - that's what the blue links are for. Again, when we move the Mitchell Bard article to Mitchell Bard (former AIPAC employee) let me know. Until then, I think it's probably better to abide by WP:NPOV and avoid poisoning the well. And in response to your question, are you stating that the only text you will accept is the text that includes his job 18 years ago, and you are completely unwilling to compromise? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, there is no poisoning the well going on - we're putting his statements into the context of his experience - his experience at a "Jewish lobby" is clearly relevant when he is talking about "Jewish lobbies".
Jayjg, a compromise is when both parties get what they want. You get to include the accurate description of him that you have written, and we get to note the accurate fact that this author who is discussing "Jewish lobbies" is a former employee of a "Jewish lobby". In the spirit of compromise, I am willing to include whatever else you want to include to describe Bard. If you think it is important to note that he worked for AIPAC 15 (not 18) years ago, then by all means add that. Are you unwilling to accept this compromise? Jgui (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Describing someone based on work they did 18 years ago, because you think it will undermine the reader's view of their reliability and impartiality on a subject, is, of course, poisoning the well; please drop any pretense to the contrary. Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone states "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation." And, given the fact that the only conflict here is about whether or not we should include reference to his 18 year earlier job at AIPAC, it's quite disingenuous to claim that including it is a "compromise". A description of Bard should say what he currently does, not what he did 18 years ago. In the spirit of compromise, though, I'm willing to remove any description of Bard at all. Are you unwilling to accept this compromise? Jayjg (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Jayjg, so let us get this straight. If there is any author on the page about Jewish lobbies who has ever worked for a Jewish lobby, then it is being suggested that we are not allowed to note this fact on the "Jewish lobby" page? We are only allowed to state his name?? By what reading of WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone does one arrive at this conclusion? And is this an argument for this extraordinary policy for every WP article - because that will cause major disruptions to every WP page so far written??? Jgui (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I noticed that Mitchell Bard has his own article which mentions his editing work at AIPAC in the lead. It appears that he is linked in the Jewish lobby article as well; would a possible solution be to drop any qualification of him and let readers click him and decide for themselves? Shell babelfish 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with removing description of Bard, but Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer should be described as such. Carol Moore 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Ok, can you explain why the article needs to include their job descriptions? Shell babelfish 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Shell, that was already stated above: Removing short descriptions of cited authors is not the solution - we are not writing an encyclopedia for some knowledgeable WP editor, we are writing an encyclopedia for the average reader who may not know who Bard, Mearsheimer, Walt, etc. are. The descriptions of all of these authors should be in this article, as they are in all well-written encyclopedia articles. Jgui (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, though short descriptions generally better. But sometimes longer ones necessary for their contribution to have a proper context. It's an editorial judgment. General principles should rule. The issue of using AIPAC on Bard is completely separate from this general issue.Carol Moore 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I agree, a short description should be fine. Bard is the Executive Director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), and the director of the Jewish Virtual Library. Is that too long? Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I side with Carol on this M&W question, because they have a book article. An encyclopedia usually encourages this kind of academic writing, over others. I believe this type of book tends toward RS; I believe they deserve professorial mention. For other sources, say Bard, I have problems with which professional/characterizing mention is used. Based on wiki-links, although similarly Ph and D’d, he is not a professor, he seems to be an activist. So what is he? Well, that, for me, is based on what Wiki says and what it doesn’t say. It says he is the honcho of redlinked [AICE], which is re-directed to JVL. But, if you look at JVL’s website, it says JVL is a division of AICE; that doesn’t help much. So, again what is he, his site is certainly a source for Wikipedia and a good one, (except politics and certain history, woops). But how good is his cite? I find the Wiki-link here much more enlightening. But we might need to check this [1]. A short, description should give readers a clue; 'professors' is good in the first, the second description must be longer, but briefer than current. I might accept a link to JVL only, if it had a criticism section. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Bard should only be described as director of the Jewish Virtual Library because there is a wiki article and because that will be more meaningful than AICE which is pretty meaningless for most readers, esp. since when you internet search it you end up in JVL as mentioned above. Carol Moore 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}