Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/perjorative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] POV (and WP:OR?) Issues with "pejorative" quotes

I have complained about these two quotes per comments below. It seems to me to be a WP:OR attempt to make "pejorative" uses equal antisemitic uses, and using two dubious quotes; and POV as well. Any thoughts from Shell.

  • It is not clear if this is an exact or summary quote: In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, "the Jewish lobby," as in this Financial Times usage in 1977.. Despite multiple requests (4-5) here, here and in edit summaries to clarify which it is, this has not been answered. Whether sentence NPOV (and not WP:OR) depends on that accuracy. Can I now delete it since no answer given??
  • This quote makes no sense: Michael Lasky describes the term as an "unfortunate phrase", and "imagines" that Alexander Walker's use of it while writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl was not intended pejoratively. REF:Lasky, Melvin J. The Language of Journalism, Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 147. It seems to be an effort to get a second use of "pejoratively" in same paragraph, despite actually detracting from the article. Jayjg has refused to even explain what it is supposed to mean, in article or in talk, despite requests.

Carol Moore 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Can you explain why it matters if the quote is entire or if non-meaningful words were left out for space? Also, I would strongly suggest that editing the article regarding the issues being discussed in mediation isn't the best way to work out your differences. And reverting is never a helpful editing practice.
As far as the second quote, it makes sense to me? I'm not sure what your concern is there -- have you tried proposing ways to rewrite the sentence, or looked up the reference to see the quote in its proper context? I find looking at the source can often help me understand why and how certain quotes are being used. Shell babelfish 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Safire quote - Since we do not know what the original quote is, it could be it reads something like "Some people in England refer to the "Jewish Lobby." "Kosher Lobby" is an even more pejorative term for the "Israel Lobby." So it is important to know the exact quote to see if what is written is an accurate - OR inaccurate - summary. I've lost track of where it came from, but Jayjg defends it so I assume he knows.
Lasky quote. The first time I read the actual page of the book the summary seemed like an accurate reflection - of something that didn't make sense. Looking again, I see that the original is a POV/biased summary. I think this new summary below provides full context and is more accurate. It also makes raises the question of whether belongs in the descriptive and not antisemitic section - since "unfortunate" does not automatically mean antisemitic:

Michael Lasky, author of The Language of Journalism, notes that Alexander Walker uses the "unfortunate phrase about the 'Jewish Lobby'" when he writes about "the 'Nazi'" films of Leni Riefenstahl. Lasky "imagines" Walker "only wanted to suggest that he agreed with 'the Jews' in thinking that those famous Third Reich documentaries were more propaganda than art."

Carol Moore 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Again, Shell, you see what I'm up against. I provide a direct and exact quote for Carol from Safire, but for some reason it's not good enough. Please, try to get her to articulate exactly what's wrong with the quote provided, I've never been able to. Carol, Safire uses these exact words: In Great Britain the "Israel lobby" is called, even more pejoratively, "the Jewish lobby," as in this Financial Times usage in 1977 Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume the use of quotes is in the original, perhaps that was what was confusing Carol. Carol, now that Jayjg has confirmed that is the full quote, do you have any other concerns? Shell babelfish 01:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I did explicitly ask him [[here (and in edit summaries) for exact quote and did not get a response. So now I have one. Mediation does have its positive outcomes :-) Now any comments on Lasky before we go through same round of reverts that happened today. Carol Moore 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Its also important to understand that you have the onus of looking at sources yourself as well. Is there any reason that people are still edit warring on the article even though mediation is in progress? Shell babelfish 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A good question. I asked the same question myself on January 27, but was ignored:[1] Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
When a short quote comes from a book that is not online, but the person actually has in their possession, it's a bit much to ask them to go to the library to find it - esp when most will NOT have it - or to buy it. Obviously when you are talking longer summaries, it's more of a problem. But long summaries themselves can be a problem.
Re: edit war, there have been reverts back and forth of:
Pointing fingers at each other isn't going to help resolve the dispute; lets focus on discussing our differences and how to work towards a common understanding. I'm not picking on one side or the other here, just pointing out that reverting isn't an editing tool and generally leads to escalation of disputes instead of resolving them. Shell babelfish 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, Shell, she's also complaining when I make the exact same edits she just made, in order to accommodate her! For example, regarding [2] I moved the ADC quote to where Carol had earlier moved it herself. When Carol complains that I am making the very edit she preferred, I'm dumbstruck by the continued speciousness of the complaints being raised about my edits. Regarding [3], again, I removed a quote that Carol objected to, and she then complains about it - this is entirely tendentious. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I read your question above: Is there any reason that people are still edit warring on the article even though mediation is in progress? as meaning, what kind of edits are they doing and why. I thought that since several of the changes (or reverts) were made because of alleged WP:OR but complaints about those WP:OR issues were not brought here, it was relevant. (Jayjg's seeming capricious other changes also confusing.) You are right that reverting isn't an editing tool and generally leads to escalation of disputes - so it is frustrating when someone keeps reverting/deleting on WP:OR grounds that they haven't bothered to discuss here. Carol Moore 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

And you have done the same thing, so if we can please stop discussing each other and work on the actual issues, that would be incredible helpful. Shell babelfish 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm sorry for the confusion, my comment asking about why people were edit warring was actually rhetorical. Shell babelfish 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My first mediation, so learning how to get with the program :-) So are those party to mediation not supposed to make any changes during it that are not approved here?? Or only deletes and reversions? (Mostly I added or rearranged things or supported others reverts since the 19th when this really got started.)
I did delete one sentence after only discussing on talk - but after it was reverted brought here in this section. Actually have come to better understanding of "pejorative" issue, but will give others a chance to bring up their WP:OR issues before I restate the issue. Carol Moore 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
(Edit conflict) There's been real progress. Jayjg (talk · contribs) isn't deleting the entire "Descriptive" section any more. This could work out. I haven't had to edit the article itself in over a month, other than a minor edit because someone misspelled "Dictionary". We have a reasonable selection of quotes in the "Descriptive" section, all from solid sources. The quotes in the "Antisemitic" section tend to be from op-ed pieces, but that's the nature of the subject. The "US Lobbying" template was removed in Revision as of 01:27, 25 March 2008 Jayjg (Move Australian lobby section to top, per Carol), but that may have been an error. It might even be appropriate, since the article has become less US-centric over the last month. Do we have a template for "Lobbying" that's not US-centric? --John Nagle (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll be getting to the "Descriptive" section next, John. See the section below. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Descriptive" and "Antisemitic" uses sections

Currently the article has been divided into basically two sections, a "Descriptive" one and an "Antisemitic" one. Now I can understand why someone might lump all the uses listed in the "Antisemitic" section under that title; after all, all the sources in there say the usage is (or can be) antisemitic. But there are serious WP:NOR issues with the "Descriptive" header. According to what sources are these uses "Descriptive"? John, Carol, can you quote any of the sources saying the term is "descriptive"? Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue of Descriptive vs. Antisemitic under the larger section "Usage" was discussed above Here's short explanation of Why "Descriptive" Section is Not WP:OR

The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia defines the "Jewish lobby" as "an unwieldy group of individuals and organisations devoted to supporting the needs and interests of the Jewish community." The article notes that: "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."[2]

  • Even if this is not sufficient, WP:NPOV encourages all views to be used if have WP:RS. And it is customary to give a section SOME title. "Descriptive" certainly seems NPOV.
Carol Moore 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Are there any other words that might be a better description for what this section holds? Shell babelfish 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral" or "mainstream" also are good, and probably would be acceptable to those of us who want these quotes in their own section. However, they don't have the benefit of having any quotes that mention them, like "descriptive" does inthe BB ADC quote, so they would be even more open to being allegedly WP:OR. Carol Moore 20:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You believe neutral or mainstream would be appropriate section headings here? Isn't that making a judgment call on the material and a bit more than what the sources claim? Shell babelfish 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I thought your asking for better description just meant one acceptable, as opposed to one that could survive any challenge, as I opined those would be challenged. Actually I had thought about "definitions" which two quotes explicitly are and two implicitly are, but figured that would be shot down. Would that work?? Carol Moore 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
"Definitions" seems reasonable to me, for the sources that are actually definitions. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So which ones currently under "Descriptive" do you consider not to be definitions and what would you do with them? Carol Moore 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Tivnan obviously doesn't provide a definition. I've put the Definitions in a Definitions section, and the rest in an Activities section. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equating Pejorative with Antisemitic Currently WP:OR and WP:SYN??

I have come to a better understanding of this issue. The problem was less exact quotes and more WP:OR/SYN. The meaning of Pejorative is disapproving, derogatory, derisive, dyslogistic, disparaging or belittling. Pejorative does not by itself mean 'bigoted" or "antisemtic." (Though obviously some pejorative comments are.)

You only can say pejorative means antisemitic if you find a very reliable source's opinion that any/all "pejorative" comments, writings, etc. about the "Jewish Lobby" are defacto antisemtic - or - if "pejorative" is used in a sentence with quoted negative comments that are described as antisemtic.

Therefore, the following statements are all WP:OR and should be removed. (Alternatively they could be moved to a NEW section on "Pejorative and Critical." Some WP:RS comments by or about Petras', for example, could be there too.)

  • According to Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Philip Mendes, the term is used in Australia as a pejorative description of the way in which the Jewish community influences the Liberal Party "by talking to its leaders and making them aware of Jewish wishes and views".
  • William Safire writes that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more pejorative" term for "the 'Israel lobby'".
  • Michael Lasky describes the term as an "unfortunate phrase", and "imagines" that Alexander Walker's use of it while writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl was not intended pejoratively.

Carol Moore 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

So is it correct that your feeling is that a derogatory or derisive comment about Jews would not be considered anti-semitic? Shell babelfish
OK, so you say derogatory does not mean antisemitic. Can you define for us what an antisemitic comment is in your opinion Carolmooredc? Yahel Guhan 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is about "Jewish Lobby", not Jews. And pejorative can mean anything from disapproving[4] (negative comments based on careful factual analysis about specific actions of one group, or the groups working together, or some characteristics some of the groups share) - to - highly disparaging or belittling (bigoted generalizations) about all Jewish lobby groups. The former might not be antisemitic, the latter probably would be.
Therefore in the absence of any other evidence that these three quotes refer to actual antisemitic statements, and not just factual criticisms that the authors didn't like, we have to categorize them as WP:OR because they are assuming statements are antisemitic without proving it. Remember we are talking about the give and take of politics where people do get pejorative - without necessarily being bigoted. They must prove that the pejorative statements referred to were in fact antisemitic. Carol Moore 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

So, lets replace the word pejorative with the definition you picked (that it means disapproving or negative) for the three quotes:

  • According to Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Philip Mendes, the term is used in Australia as a [disapproving/negative] description of the way in which the Jewish community influences the Liberal Party "by talking to its leaders and making them aware of Jewish wishes and views".
  • William Safire writes that in the United Kingdom "Jewish lobby" is used as an "even more [disapproving/negative] " term for "the 'Israel lobby'".
  • Michael Lasky describes the term as an "unfortunate phrase", and "imagines" that Alexander Walker's use of it while writing about the "Nazi" films of Leni Riefenstahl was not intended [disapprovingly/negatively.]

So if we go by the definition you gave, the definition you gave presents the term as being a negative depiction of Jews according to the sources you dispute. I still await your definition of what you believe an antisemitic comment is. Yahel Guhan 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good way of making your point, but the problem remains that the quotes do not give any examples so we don't know if when using pejorative they are talking about some mild criticism that anyone would laugh off or truly heinous statements. Jewish Lobby's "descriptive" section makes it clear the phrase is used in neutral, descriptive ways, and all four authors might be hypersensitive and misinterpreting uses of the phrase that they have heard.
A compromise might be to have the quotes in a paragraph that starts by defining pejorative to make it clear we do not know how negative the comments were. And mediation is about compromise, isn't it? :-) Carol Moore 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I'm not sure I'd ever consider the word perjorative to be a statement that can be laughed off, and I think I see where the editors who are concerned about WP:OR may be coming from. Could the fact that you are suggesting interpreting sources and reporting your conclusions on the weight of the statements or suggesting adding definitions to attempt to "clarify" sources you disagree with be one of the reasons people are concerned that the original research policy is an issue here? Shell babelfish 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was one bringing up possibility of WP:OR. This is the first time it occurred to me to define pejorative first, only as a way of resolving what I considered WP:OR problem. However, having seen so many nitpicky applications of WP:OR in the past, I've become hyper-critical of possible WP:OR. Since no one else is agreeing with me, maybe that's all it is :-) Carol Moore 20:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
The section heading was at one point "Pejorative and/or antisemitic"; Carol recently changed the heading to "Antisemitic", with the edit summary perjorative in section is WP:OR and POV;, and is now complaining that the material in the section is not all antisemitic. I'm not sure what was wrong with the older heading, can Carol explain? Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As explained before, I originally thought just the section title was WP:OR because it ASSUMED pejorative meant only antisemitic and not critical. Only later did it occur to me that all the quotes seemed to do the same thing. I guess this is one more example where we have to wait til get relevant quotes clarifying the point not all pejorative comments about Jewish Lobby groups are antisemitic and the article meanwhile will have to remain biased/untrue/inaccurate/etc. I still think the solution is a section on critical comments that are not pejorative and then stick "pejorative" related quotes there. A future project to be discussed on talk. Carol Moore 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Hm. We have a heading problem. One possibility is to use the heading "Claims of antisemitic usage". The quotes in the "Antisemitic" section aren't actual examples of antisemitic usage; they're mostly editorials and op-ed pieces claiming that such usage exists or complaining about marginal examples of usage. The cites are either vague or refer to ordinary political discourse. --John Nagle (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is not a scientific measurement of whether or not something is "antisemitic". You may think the claims are "marginal", the sources do not. WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly those quotes should be included, at least the ones that are from sources above the blog and "letters to the editor" level, per WP:RS. I have no problem with that. Most of them are partisan opinions, and are properly cited to an individual, so we're OK there. Only the heading is an issue. Perhaps the appropriate heading should be "Allegations of antisemitic usage". --John Nagle (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Where is the "allegation"? The sources do not "allege" an antisemitic connection. Rather they state there is a connection. Besides, which sources disagree with the usage of the term being antisemitic? Yahel Guhan 07:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering there are only two examples (Dawkins and Davies) of "antisemitic" statements and, as even article text suggests, one is a mis-speaks and the other misinterpreted praise, at this point all the section has are "Claims of antisemitic usage". I'm sure there are real antisemetic uses, but no one has bothered to share any. Mark Webers' A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby would seem to be a prime example. Surely someone has criticized it? And of course pejorative would fit nicely under the heading "Claims of antisemitic usage"! Carol Moore 15:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
What do you mean "one is a mis-speaks and the other misinterpreted praise"? In any event, many of the sources quite explicitly state that the usage can be antisemitic, as a brief reading of the section makes clear. There is no obligation on their part to bring specific examples that you approve of. I've restored the earlier heading "Antisemitic and/or pejorative use" to cover all the material there, since you've said you removed it because you misunderstood the title, or the meaning of the word pejorative, or the meaning of OR, or something. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I see there's been another big revert from Jayjg (talk · contribs). Can we get that editor put on one-revert-per-week limitation? --John Nagle (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
John, that appears to be your sole approach to this article, attempting to get others (well, me) sanctioned. Your last attempt ended up getting you sanctioned instead. Since you can't really claim I'm even violating 1RR (I edit the article itself only two or three times a week), you're now hoping you can get a one revert per week limitation. In any event, I didn't revert Carol's work, I edited it, since she was editing too. And instead of focusing on me, why not focus on improving the article? That would be a welcome change. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a place to work out content disputes not behavioral disputes. Here we work together to build consensus on the issues of content, mediation cannot produce sanctions on editors or article content. It would probably be helpful if everyone would agree to just stop editing the article at all until things are worked out here. Shell babelfish 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Carolmooredc, who has reverted just as many times as Jayjg, if not more? Yahel Guhan 06:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I still suspect people will misinterpret, but the more important issue is getting more good quotes in there
  • Do we want to do a mathematical chart of who has done the most mass and other reverts? :-) Carol Moore 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Nope. Again, mediation does not handle behavior, just tries to sort out content, so who reverts and how often is completely outside of the scope and hoenstly, will probably just fuel more problems. Shell babelfish 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a rhetorical question :-) Carol Moore 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}