Talk:Anti-Israel lobby in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

unreliable source used as basis

nearly this entire article is based on an article by Michael Lewis, the director of policy analysis for AIPAC. The article contains the explicit disclaimer that "the views expressed here are those of the author alone." To use this as the source to say that all these organizations are "anti-Israel" and work towards goals inimical to the state of Israel as a fact is unacceptable. Find a RS backing up the claims that these are anti-Israel lobbies. nableezy - 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

also the examiner source is unreliable, see WP:RS/N#Examiner.com nableezy - 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your assertion puts material in an article by Lewis on exactly the same footing as the book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on which the article on Pro-Israel lobby in the United Sates is based. All books and articles express the ideas of the author alone except for those (relatively few) books and articles that are sponsored by institutions. We judge books and articles by how well they are sourced. Walt and Mearsheimer's use of sources has, of course, been widely criticized. If you have some well-sourced criticism of Lewis' use of sources you may, of course , bring it. Historicist (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We actually judge sources on whether or not they are reliable secondary sources and how other reliable secondary sources treat them, not on how they use sources. That article is in effect an editorial and is not a RS to make the statement of fact that these organizations are "anti-Israel lobbies" working in ways "inimical to the state of Israel". And no, not all books and articles express the ideas of the author alone, any real publisher who puts their name on a book does fact checking and vetting for the claims of the book, any real news source does the same except for editorials where it clearly only the idea of the writer. If you want me to take this to WP:RS/N I can, but an editorial by the AIPAC director of policy analysis is not a proper source to state as a fact that these organizations are "anti-Israel lobbies" nableezy - 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming that this is an "editorial"? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The line "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." at the very top of the editorial? nableezy - 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is heavily-sourced journal article. The disclaimer is boilerplate used to indicate that the author is writing a scholarly piece and not speaking offocially on behalf of the organization for which he works. Historicist (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Plenty of respectable Arab and Palestinian scholar/authors/experts belong to extremely partisan, fringy, and lobbying organizations. Some of these groups even condone "resistance" against Israeli occupation, though others refer to it differently. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece with all the conclusions being the opinion of the author. Unless the author himself is a reliable source this editorial is not a reliable source. nableezy - 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you have not read WP:RS. nableezy - 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• User Nableezy is wrong about this. Washingtonexaminer.com is the web site of the daily newspaper that appears in a print edition.Historicist (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The examiner.com article was not from washingtonexaminer.com. What is it that I am wrong about? nableezy - 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It is obviously propaganda and not based on real wp:rs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Er.... because you don't like it?Historicist (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course if it isn't deleted it means someone can start Anti-Islamic lobby in the United States and Anti-Arab lobby in the United States and [[Anti-Palestinian lobby in the United States using one little article as basis and then just WP:Coatracking all the usual Israel Lobby suspects. Of course, since two of those are not even related to a nation state but a religion or nationality, they obviously would be evidence of bigotry, not politics. I can think of dozens of articles about just such organized bigotry by various pro-Israel groups that could serve as a basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Have your also proposed the deletion of Jewish lobby?Historicist (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• This article is about organizations and individuals that lobby against Israel. the article on the Arab lobby in the United States is about orgnaizations that lobby on behalf of Arab causes. The two lobbies may overlap, but they are hardly the same.Historicist (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Arab lobby in the United States but I'm surprised you don't want to change that to Pro-Arab to be consistent. Not that I recommend you do it since Arab Lobby, like Israel Lobby, is the usual usage. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Israel Lobby" is the "usual" usage only in anti-Israel circles. In this I cite [[William Safire". Your bias shows in your false assertion.Historicist (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Israel lobby" is the usual usage in academic and political circles that aren't particularly "anti-Israel." "anti-Israel lobby" is common, well, nowhere. This article should be AfD'd forthwith. csloat (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The content is well-referenced, if the title is your concern feel free to propose a move. There is a strong movement that rides against the US support for Israel, and this has been referred to as the "anti-Israel lobby." It might not be entirely accurate, but that's not our problem. The Israel lobby in the United States image is based on how enemies perceive US support for Israel. The whole concept of this dominant Jewish control over our politicians, government, economy, taxpayers, etc...etc..is bolstered by critics. AIPAC doesn't pass itself off as such, and neither does the Anti-Israel lobby. I'd endorse a move if a reasonable alternative is suggested but at this point I think the article is perfectly acceptable under wikipedia policy. I know Israel is a touchy subject for many so let's try to keep this cordial, trust me here. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase "Israel lobby" is in common usage by a variety of external sources, whereas "anti-Israel lobby" is not. It has no bearing on the "touchiness" of the subject - it's just a matter of confirming with reliable sources that this is indeed a coherent concept in a recognized body of literature. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The movement is recognized as lobby against the state of Israel - hence anti-Israel lobby. We could re-title it Organizations that lobby against US support for Israel but that is just silly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a better title, sure, except presumably those orgs also lobby for other things? Or are they orgs whose only purpose is to lobby against US support for Israel? If the latter, OK, but if the former, it is a WP:SYN problem to connect them in that way without reliable sources that discuss them in a group like that. There is an identifiable group of reliable sources -- scholars as well as media pundits or left-wing ideologues -- who discuss an "Israel lobby." I have never seen that sort of discussion of an organized "Anti-Israel lobby" outside of a small circle on the far right, and the article does not suggest otherwise. If this is a more substantive concept, we do need to see the reliable sources that substantiate it. csloat (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How article could be NPOV and even accurate

On the other hand, the article could be NPOV if - besides deleting the obviously pro-Israel content, it detailed the reasons that those who are "anti-Israel" are so, including everything from Apartheid in Israel to the Samson Option threat to nuke Arab, European and Russian cities which is used as a threat agains the US (not to mention the USS Liberty incident and the killing of Rachel Corrie, etc.). After all if one is ANTI something one usually has a reason, doesn't one? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That may fit your POV but right now lodging content you don't endorse as "pro-Israel" is extremely bad-faith. Israel and the apartheid analogy is loaded with strictly pro-Palestinian and partisan sources. So is 1948 Palestinian Exodus. This article has only been around for less than 2 days so a sharp assessment like yours is rather suspect. Perhaps it would be better to collaborate and be more explicit in what content you believe does not qualify under wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I wrote on renamed pro-Israel lobby: However, thinking about it, pro-Israel lobby isn't that bad because it makes it clear what nation the Israel lobbyists in the US are most pro- :-)

If anyone bothered to do any internet search they would see there are a lot of articles about the "anti-Israel lobby." How to comply with wikipolicies:

• Only if a WP:RS sources actually call a group "anti-Israel" or if it self identifies thusly can it be mentioned in this article or one is violating WP:BLP.
• And of course to be NPOV/Balanced the main reasons a group is "anti-Israel" must be mentioned, once some WP:RS identifies it thusly. So the article can't just be a WP:Coatrack for making groups look like anti-Semites who want to kill all the Jews, which seems to be the intention of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that organizations -- even the American Friends Service Committee -- work in ways "inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel" is inherently POV. Who says it's "inimical"? Only the WP editor. There are many Israelis and American Jews who believe that many of these organizations are working for the welfare of the state of Israel. It's a reasonable position to say that Israeli militarism and the killing of innocent Palestinians is inimical to the welfare of the state of Israel.

I think this article violates WP:NPOV on its face, because of its open and one-sided hostility to its subject. Unless it can be rewritten to comply with [WP:NPOV]] (and probably renamed), it should be deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a place for an article about groups that really are "anti-Israel" which explains the concrete political ways they are, including because of actions of Israel itself. But the phrase and the article cannot be defined by people who are pro-Israel or it inherently POV. I don't know if anyone else really will want to work on such an article, so over all User:Nbauman is pretty much correct. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be more explicit. All I see is SOAP about how the article is POV because you happen to disagree with its subject matter. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just put a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Middle_East_Quarterly on this very subject. I should have put it here. There I said pretty much what Carol says - that the article is editorial in character, and needs a lot of rewrite.

Take, for example, the lead: "Anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe the coalition of organizations and individuals who work to influence United States foreign policy in ways inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel." It is true that "Anti-Israeli lobby" is a term used to describe a group of organizations, and probably the members of that group would not object too strenuously to being called that. But to say they are "inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel"? Isn't that being a little extreme? Many people think that "encouraging a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East" and "leading Arab-American voice on foreign policy issues, especially by defending the rights of the Palestinian people" - stated positions from the ADC's website - is not inimical to the continued existence of Israel. Nor is protesting military actions by Israel as a violation of human rights anti-Israeli any more than protesting human rights violations in Darfur is being anti-Sudani. There are plenty of Israeli groups that consider actions by Israel in the recent Gaza war as war crimes. Are those groups anti-Israeli? Are they inimical to the continued existence of the state of Israel?

There is an anti-Israeli lobby and it is deserving of an article in Wikipedia. When the MEQ puts forth an opinion about the nature of this lobby, it deserves to be quoted. But it should be quoted directly, and we should make it clear that the opinion is just that. And the positions of the different lobbying groups should also be directly quoted, and actions they have taken - such as publishing an op-ed column in the Boston Globe on Israeli settlements - attributed directly to the websites and publications of those organizations, and not quoted in generalizations from a third party. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: I have taken the liberty of revising the lead in a way I think is a bit less provocative. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "supporters of Israel" is inaccurate in this entry.

The real meaning here is "supporters of the Israeli right," or "supporters of the Likud," or "supporters of the settler movement."

I'm a supporter of Israel (I've done fund-raising), but I'm also a supporter of the American Friends Service Committee, and I think the AFSC is also a supporter of Israel.

I'm a supporter of Israel -- I support a democratic, law-abiding Israel at the 1967 borders. James Zogby and Jesse Jackson would say the same thing. This has to be drastically rewritten or deleted.

I really don't feel like getting into an edit war with the usual self-proclaimed pro-Israel WP editors. So I expect they will keep it POV and it will have to be deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and, since I wrote it, I feel free to change it. However, I don't like the new version of the lead by Nableezy. Nab, you have removed the fact that these are lobbying organizations that explicitly act to change US policy. They are not ashamed of that goal, why should be be? Also, I don't think the term "anti-Israeli" is used pejoratively. Are you insulted when someone calls you anti-Israeli? Nbauman and I might be, because we consider ourselves pro-Israeli, but I don't think people in general consider the term pejorative. It seems pretty neutral to me in this case.

How about:

Anti-Israel lobby refers to a group of organizations and individuals who lobby to change United States policies favorable to Israel. Michael Lewis, director of Policy Analysis for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (the leading pro-Israeli lobby in Washington), claims that the agenda of these organizations is "injuring the Jewish state, rather than aiding Arabs."(footnote)

I removed something from the lead? Only thing I changes was the wording of "Critics claim that " to Michael Lewis, director of Policy Analysis for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (the leading pro-Israeli lobby in Washington), claims that the". nableezy - 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see I changed "the" to "thei" and then thought it was a spelling mistake and made it "their", changed it back so the only change to the lead made was explicitly citing the critic. nableezy - 18:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your question, yes I am insulted when somebody calls me "anti-Israel" as I do not equate being opposed to policies of the government of Israel to being opposed to Israel. But I havent made any real content changes in this article (at least I dont think I made that change in the lead, but short-term memory isnt the strongest for me right now), mostly cleaning up refs and explicitly citing opinion pieces. I personally think this article is garbage so I do not plan on wasting a whole lot of time dealing with it. The very foundation of this article is garbage (we have to define these things as pro and anti-Israel, why not pro and anti-Palestine? why not pro and anti-human rights? and on and on). This article is only going to serve as a coatrack for every opinion that some group is anti-Israel and to label them as such. Are any of the organizations listed in this article usually described as anti-Israel? Or is it more often they are described as pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian or pro-whatever? That last statement from Nbauman (16:08) succintly sums up my attitude towards this article, though I think said self-proclaimed pro-Israel editors will shout loud enough at any future AfD that the result will likely be "no consensus". nableezy - 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

is this the change in the lead you were referring to? nableezy - 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. "Anti-Israel" and worse "anti-Israeli" are quite pejorative and non-neutral terms, and I have little doubt that the organizations and people mentioned here would be quite insulted by being called that. Should we change the name of the Israel lobby articles to Anti-Arab lobby? Are black civil rights organizations anti-white? The article blithely ignores WP:NPOV as if it did not exist, and repeatedly asserts highly disputable statements as fact. We currently have an article Arab lobby in the United States. Some of the content here might be appropriate as critique there. The most parallel article to this one is Jewish lobby, which is mainly about the use of the term; if this one stays, it should be drastically shortened and similarly be mainly about language, instead of a coatrack for criticisms of organizations that belong in their articles or in the arab lobby article. I have my doubts about the Neusner quote on the AFSC - it is from a book edited by him, and from what I see on the net, not clearly from an article by him in it.John Z (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another clear problem is that a leading source of the article, Lewis's article, doesn't even use the phrase "anti-Israel lobby" or suggest the degree of coherence probably implied by the phrase, calling them "Israel's detractors" instead.. So the second sentence of the lead is bad. WP:OR?.John Z (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That particular article does not use the phrase "Anti-Israel lobby", although it includes many sentences like this one "The anti-Israel effort also included organizing anti-Israel protests and letter-writing campaigns; attempting passage of anti-Israel resolutions in state and national party platforms; offering anti-Israel testimony before Congress; attempting to sue Israel in U.S. courts; attacking Congressional supporters of Israel; and mounting assorted efforts against pro-Israel groups." However, I cite books that do use this phrase, and could cite many more. Moreover, the listed organizations self-describe as working to end foreign aid to Israel, to reduce American sympathy for Israel and, in several cases, to eliminate Israel.Historicist (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like OR to me to describe that as an "Anti-Israel Lobby"; if there are substantive sources using that phrase (or making more clear that this is a real concept in a recognized body of literature), that's what should be cited here. I think the OR problem John Z is pointing out is a problem for a large number of the sources in this article. csloat (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more points: Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege, a history sympathetic to Zionism, says "and granted the no less tremendous financial interests involved, one might have expected a great anti-Israel lobby to emerge. But this has not happened." This book says "There is much reporting of the Jewish lobby, much less so of the active, well-financed pro-Arab or anti-Israel lobby which has been operating on many fronts" - identifying the (pro)Arab Lobby and the "anti-Israel Lobby", and supporting the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK of Arab lobby in the United States.John Z (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

US slant

Is there a reason to limit the scope of this article to US-based lobbying efforts? Clearly such lobbying efforts exist elsewhere - see for example The anti-Israel Lobby in Britain. Will we be creating a similar Anti-Israel lobby in Britain, or should we rename this article and include such material here? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should be such an article on every country, and then , perhaps, an article on the international anti-Israel lobby. The politics of this is , after all, both international, and very particular to the culture and politics of individual countries.Historicist (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a lot. It makes sense to have one basic article and include the various countries - of have the US (which is the most popular) and then everyone else. The Arab countries run some pretty heavy-hitting fronts, but they tend to do more than just spread dogma. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack_page?

I think this really is an attack page, per Wikipedia:Attack_page. It's goal is to make all the named individuals and groups look bad which is vs. WP:BLP. If it is NOT an attack page, then it is perfectly fine to write an article about the pejorative term Israel firster since I see that a number of WP:RS have discussed it and some well known people like Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer have used it. And name all the people they claim are Israel firsters. Should it be reported as such? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly in danger of that, and has BLP problems. I think merge of appropriate content to various pages and redirect to Arab lobby might be the best.John Z (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States and opine. I will look again at the list of groups since I've worked on Arab lobby. Some are there. I know someone else removed CAIR which I had up there. Other groups may not be lobbying groups, but certainly want to be accurate! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Having looked it over I don't think it is an attack page. It needs work to improve neutrality but I don't think deletion is the best solution.Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lewis article

• The article in contention is a heavily-sourced journal article. User:nableezy is in error in believing that it is an editorial because it carries the disclaimer that "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." The disclaimer is boilerplate used to indicate that the author is writing a scholarly piece and not speaking offocially on behalf of the organization for which he works. Moreover, as I point out on the article talk page, all books are only as reliable as their author. Publishers do not use fact-checkers as newspapers do. The Walt and Mearcheimer book, for example, is only as reliable as Walt and Mearshiemer.Historicist (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It itself says its an opinion piece. I dont see how you are disputing that. Even Ghcool agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel that this is an opinion piece. Yes he cites the statments that he thinks are anti-Israel, how does that make it less of an opinion piece? nableezy - 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And reputable academic publishers actually do fact check books they publish. nableezy - 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. What they do is send the manuscript out for review. This means that it is read once, by one academic, who gets paid nothing but who reads it out of a sense of scholarly responsibility. He then sends the publisher a letter a couple of paragraphs long approving the book. There are rare cases in which a reviewer will find s book so wide of the mark that he will alert the publisher with a detailed analysis, and the publisher may choose to return the manuscript for improvement or even to reject the manuscript. This is exceedingly rare. But it is also not fact-checking. Fact-checking is what the Washington Post, Newsweek and the New Yorker do. It is extremely expensive and time consuming. For the news weeklies, it involves paying full-tie, staff researchers to comb through an article and verify the source of every fact. On the papers, the reporters do this themselves, and must vouch for every fact. This is not to say that no errors slip in. They do. But make too many and your job is on the line. Book publishing is an entirely different game. You can make as many errors of fact as you will, but if your books sell, they'll publish more. This applies even to university presses. The only checks are legal and reputational. Publish bad facts and you might fail to get tenure, or fail to get another contract with a prestige press like Oxford and have to go with, say Verso. and some publishers have books on certain topics checked for libel. But, no, Vriginia, book publishers do not check facts. Academic journals are another story, again, but I've got other things to do.Historicist (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't know a whole lot about academic publishing, do you? Fact checking may or may not occur in any particular instance, but the idea that manuscripts are only reviewed by one academic, who rarely rejects the manuscript, is laughable. csloat (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginia? But back to the point, how are you disputing this is an opinion piece? The "article" itself says "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." How are you coming here and say this is not presented as the authors "views"? How are you going to come here and say Micheal Lewis, director of policy analysis for AIPAC, is a scholar? How are you going to use the views of someone who sees these people as political adversaries to support a BLP-violative charge? nableezy - 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposals are regularly rejected, manuscripts (which a publisher sees only when the book is completed) are rarely rejected and are, as I said, not fact-checked but reviewed by a single academic reviewer.Historicist (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you say this is a "scholarly piece" when the author cannot be described as a scholar? Would you mind explaining why when the publisher says "The views expressed here are those of the author alone" you take that to mean something other than these are the authors views? nableezy - 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying, I'm really trying

I have rewritten the article up to "Prestatehood era", in a way that I hope gives some sense of reality to this article. I have removed unattributed references to "Anti-Israeli", which Nableezy convinced me is really not a neutral term (I don't know how we'll deal with that in the title). The only thing I deleted was the first part of the quote by David Harris, which, in the way it was presented, was mere demagogery. Otherwise, the material is only reorganized and rewritten (though I did add a few things).

If anyone out there thinks this is a decent start, I will keep working on it. As I have said before, the subject definitely merits an article, though a merger with the article on the Israel lobby is an option. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it gets deleted, but if not I will do some of the things I mention here Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#How_article_could_be_NPOV_and_even_accurate. Meanwhile read it if you haven't. I'm sure that done properly the average reader will see that being anti-Israel is no worse than being Anti-Zionist.

Another good source: searching Counterpunch.org for "anti-Israel" I found all sorts of discussion from WP:RS individuals and I'm sure quite a few could be inserted here. Plus try searching other publications with writers critical of Israel and I'm sure MUCH more can be discovered. This article actually could be used to establish the legitimacy of using the phrase and it might start appearing all over in mainstream publications before you know it, especially if it is linked all over wikipedia. Hmmm. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why you want to establish the legitimacy of the phrase. As it now stands, the expression appears only when attributed to pro-Israeli sources. Nableezy has convinced me that the phrase is, at least in his eyes and probably those of many others, pejorative, and we should simply avoid it wherever we can. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better title for the article, so we're kind of stuck with it.

The point of the article (at least the rewritten part) is that there is a growing lobby which is a counterbalance to the Israeli lobby. We should focus only on that, and avoid any unnecessary rhetoric. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying IF we are stuck with it, we'll have to make it right. The deletes are ahead but there are enough keep and merge that some admins would say keep it.

Also, I did some searching of pejorative and the phrase and think more searching would come up with a direct statement it is pejorative which is needed for WP:RS.

This episode should convince activists have to come up with a better phrase for their activism, however. Arab lobby in the United States, Anti-Zionism, Category:Non-governmental_organizations_involved_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process and Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States are all useful but not memorable. Palestine Solidarity Movements is probably best. There already are a couple articles starting with "Palestine Solidarity" and probably most groups here would consider themselves in that category. Finding a phrase they all use - or getting them to decide to use one - would be helpful. Then we could write the appropriate article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done Ravpapa, there are certainly pieces of this article that should continue to exist somewhere, and maybe even some that could exist in an article entitled "anti-Israel lobby" which I could see being structured similar to Jewish lobby where the content is about the term and not about the oftentimes inane uses of it. I could see a brief overview of the topic and its history forming an article that is about the term and not consisting of a coatrack of opinion pieces using it. But all these bits about x person saying this organization or this person is "anti-Israel" shouldn't be in an article title "anti-Israel lobby". nableezy - 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise

Given that the article rests on opinion pieces, it should be reorganised by the person with the opinion. Thus instead of sections "Structure", "Publication", "Impact" (which can't be considered neutral), it should be organised more along the lines of who is saying. Thus we'd have one paragraph for everything Raffel claims, one for everything Medoff claims, and so on. —Ashley Y 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The sections you cite should certainly be blown away. The article has been reorganized up to the section "Prestatehood lobby" (which should also be blown away). It is no longer about the opinions of various pro-Israeli propagandists, but about a group of political action organizations that represent the pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab viewpoints in Washington, in opposition to the Israeli lobby. Therefore, I don't think a reorganization along the lines you suggest would be appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, though, "in opposition to the Israeli lobby" is certainly not the same thing as "anti-Israel". —Ashley Y 08:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That is why I have removed the expression "anti-Israel" every time it appeared in the text but twice - and in both those cases it is attributed. So you see, the article is no longer about organizations that are anti-Israel - it is about organizations that oppose US policies supportive of Israel.

The problem of the article title remains, and I don't see how we can easily fix it. Because, for better or worse, this collection of lobbying groups is referred to in the press as the "anti-Israel lobby." As Carole astutely points out, if these groups were to agree on another term, we could rename the article, and have simply a redirect for those who looked for "anti-Israel lobby". But they haven't so we can't. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Opposition to the Israel lobby"? That describes what they're doing, and doesn't require the groups to come up with a collective name. —Ashley Y 09:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel lobby" isn't a collective name either. This is purely semantics, references refer to these movements as belonging to an anti-Israel lobby, or lobbying against US's relationship with Israel. How the Israel lobby is portrayed throughout the media and on wikipedia can be sourced from opposing groups rather than the organizations themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the revision

I have rewritten most of the second half of the article. I have in almost every case preserved the original material, though heavily revised to remove denigratory statements and unwanted slants. Here are the main substantive changes:

• Wherever the Lewis article or other source associated with the pro-Israeli viewpoint was quoted about factual matters (such as the stated focus of an organization), I sought other sources - in most cases the organizations themselves. The quotes are different, but they say the same things.

• I deleted reference to the Islamic Association of Palestine. I couldn't find any evidence that this organization actually engaged in lobbying.

• I deleted the Middle East Policy Council. I couldn't find any information on actual stands that they took, so I couldn't substantiate their affiliation with a pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian viewpoint. I didn't want just to take Lewis's word for it.

• There were a couple of organizations that were discussed twice - the American Friends of the Middle East and the NAAA. I merged the references.

• There were a lot of footnotes that didn't seem to support any particular statement in the article, but were simply there. I took them out.

I put in a line to show where I have edited to. The remainder of the article is the most problematic - I am not sure these Christian churches and organizations like the AFSC can be characterized as pro-Arab lobbyists. I think we need evidence of specific policies that they have supported in opposition to the Israeli lobby. Even then, it doesn't seem that their opposition could be considered pervasive enough to be considered part of the lobby. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: okay, I'm done. Others can do their dirty now. The last sentence of the new lead paragraph is unsupported by the article - the quote that appears toward the end of the article does not speak of organization or financial support, but only power. If you want the lead to mention the other stuff, you need to support it.

Regards, and have fun ripping the thing to shreds. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Still has following problems seen on first read:

• Doesn't recognize this is a pejorative phrase and my quick review showed such WP:RS can be found.
• Doesn't recognize that groups do NOT identify themselves thusly.
• Doesn't include quotes from those who object to being labeled anti-Israel.
• Doesn't differentiate between groups that just mad at policies, or have an alternative where Israel has to give up a lot of land, and those that want to abolish Israel entirely. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't recognize this is a pejorative phrase and my quick review showed such WP:RS can be found.

There is no consensus that this is a pejorative phrase - some think it is, some don't. The solution to this problem is (a) to use it as little as possible (it appears, I believe, only twice in the whole article), and, whenever it is used, to attribute it. To label the phrase as pejorative would in itself be POV. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't recognize that groups do NOT identify themselves thusly.

This is probably true, but you would need a quote to establish it. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't include quotes from those who object to being labeled anti-Israel.

Agree. Find them and add them. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't differentiate between groups that just mad at policies, or have an alternative where Israel has to give up a lot of land, and those that want to abolish Israel entirely.

In researching the organizations discussed in the article, I did not find a single one that wanted to abolish Israel entirely. The closest I came was the MCC, and they certainly don't advocate this, at least not explicitly. So I don't see what there is here to differentiate. If you know differently, and can back it up with quotes, by all means (Historicist agrees with you, incidentally). --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If name remains, sources will be found it is mainly used as pejorative and individuals/groups object - not bothering til see if whole article will be deleted or name changed. As a pejorative used for political purposes it is used against anyone who doesn't support the most right wing expansionist, expulsionist policies, no matter how brutal. Perhaps they don't even bother to use it against those who are truly anti-Israel in wanting no Israel at all, since that's not the group that has any influence in this country. Anyway, if name is changed we won't have to deal with issue at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also if name remains all the original partisan sources must be used AND identified to label any group "anti-Israel" plus a description of how the group labels itself and why it does so. Your attempts to make article NPOV effectively have whitewashed the fact this is a partisan phrase and part of effort to use wikipedia to force people to have only two choices - pro or anti-Israel. But I'm hoping article will be deleted so this work will not have to be done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive WP:BLP violations I'm reverting

Actually reading sources carefully since your changes, I noticed that there was all sorts of info about groups that NO ONE had labeled with the phrase "anti-Israel lobby." This is a prima facie violation of WP:BLP. Only if someone else explicitly labels theses groups "anti-Israel lobby" can you mention them in this article. If it's not in the summary or a quote, put it in a footnote.

Also please notice when people put up {inuse|90 minutes to go through sources} to show they are editing and don't interrupt. Because of the I accidentally left the old version but went back and got the almost finished version and am putting it back as one revert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been assuming Lewis actually used phrase "anti-Israel lobby" but reading/search through, he doesn't. So everything he says must be taken out UNLESS another WP:RS labels a specific group anti-Israel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Search of David Harris book shows he doesn't use the phrase either. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I worte the article in line with it's actual subject matter: explanation of a phrase used largely one narrow group - and BLP since articles which did not use phrase were quoted. I may have missed a couple of those. (See article Jewish lobby where this rule was similarly strictly enforced by User:Jayjg.)

If you want to re-add any group that do so from a source that actually uses "Anti-Israel lobby." THere are some, but I've done lots of work to keep article from being complete coatrack/blp violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly massive disruption of a better approach also. Please see my comment at the AfD. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't figure out which comment it was. Feel free to share here, especially if article not dumped.

I think it is more deletable in former version where clearly ad hominen attack. On the other hand, it may be kept anyway! If it is, if the users and their POVs are identified (I see one wasn't and needs to be) it makes a more accurate article for those who drift over here.

Also, I'm confidant some source calling whole phrase pejorative will be found - so far only have found "anti-Israel" as pejorative. But I'm sure that's relevant! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just notice it is being kept - and probably would have in last version as well given the comment. So now we have to gather evidence it is a pejorative used by partisans for the lead and make sure that all the partisans don't try to white wash that fact. Then in few months try again since pejorative nature will be clear and hopefully the partisan POV pushers will have given up. Now, to start the article on the pejorative phrase Israel firster or not - that is the question. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

renaming

Since the outcome of the deletion discussion was to leave the article, I suggest we proceed with the steps needed to make it worth something. First of all, I suggest that we rename it as per Ashley's suggestion: "Opposition to the Israel Lobby in the United States". Second, I suggest that we remove the words "anti-Israel" entirely from the article. This is obviously a source of contention that cannot be resolved, at least among the current editors. Finally, I suggest that we restore the content relevant to the subject, that was deleted during the AFD discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

set up a formal rename request below. nableezy - 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't belong here

Wikipedia itself is listed among the organisations that have been accused of being part of the 'anti-Israel lobby'. While the Jerusalem Post did make this allegation, it doesn't belong here, as this page is titled 'Anti-Israel lobby in the United States'. Wikipedia is not a uniquely American website, and the article in question made no mention of the United States. (Wikipedia is not a lobbying organisation either, but that's besides the point...) The Jerusalem Post's criticism of Wikipedia can be mentioned elsewhere (e.g. on the page Criticism of Wikipedia, or in an article on anti-Israel lobbying in general), but it doesn't belong on this article; I will remove it. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If wikipedia is anything it is Pro-Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place Supreme. Considering anti-Israel lobbying is principally in the United States (as is wikipedia - not lobbying), I'd imagine Jpost was targeting US-based org. I'd simply add a small tid-bit emphasizing this is about the "United States" because it's tough sell to remove something like that with such a weak excuse. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is an American organization trying to influence wikipedia in English in America, so obviously it is relevant. The deleted incident/phrase is also used in that WIKI article where CAMERA's infiltration of Wikipedia mentioned. The U.S. remains the country with the largest number of English speakers. Wikipedia originated in and is based in the US. What else does one need? Anyone else disagree or have other arguments before I put it back in? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Infiltrating" wikipedia? Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re infiltration, irrelevant to this issue so striking: you obviously have NOT read the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America wikipedia article which reads in part: A veteran Wikipedia editor, who according to Electronic Intifada, was "colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda."[59]. According to the Electronic Intifada website, an e-mail by one member of the Google group advised that "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."[59] "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions," another e-mail recommended.[16] The veteran Wikipedia editor identified, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, whom he viewed as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. The veteran editor instructed CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from the editor perceived to be an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Excerpts of some of the e-mails were published in the July 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine under the title of ″Candid camera″.[60] In April 2008, CAMERA's "Senior Research Analyst" Gilead Ini would not confirm that the messages were genuine but maintained that there was a CAMERA email campaign which adhered to Wikipedia's rules.[61] In August 2008, Ini argued the excerpts published in Harper's Magazine were unrepresenative and that CAMERA had campaigned "toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy".[62] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Zomg!! Electronic Intifada, CAMERAS arch-nemesis (an organization that also happens to publish journals from name-brand holocaust deniers...ooolalala), lashes at CAMERA "operatives." Please Carol, virtually the entire I/P articles are loaded with herdish clans that seek to promote POVs in a group-like fashion. It goes both ways, except some people get caught and others do not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote and it is WP:SOAPBOX and isn't relevant to this issue anyway so don't bother to respond. Why not strike your comments like I did - or we could use that nifty feature above to hide it. Anyway, it is clear that the Jerusalem post labels wikipedia (In English) as part of the anti-Israel lobby and that's the only issue of relevance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather an accurate assessment in a way - considering wikipedia has been used to frame history by various editors partial to the Palestinian or Jewish narrative. I've seen editors cry out the "Jewpedia" claim quite often, some even prominent and respected users. So while I do agree Jpost assessment of wikipedia is inconsistent with consensus, I would hope there is some way we could flesh out the circumstances involved. You know, Western Europeans have progressively silenced and self-censored discussion about the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and German expulsion after WW2, and its presence in the mainstream has largely been downplayed as a result - replaced by the new Israel debacle. Perhaps I'm thinking out loud here - for the most part I agree with you. this certainly isn't unique, from a truth perspective. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying there should there be a mention of the Jerusalem Post calling Wikipedia part of the "anti-Israel lobby" or not? Not clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevant existing categories and articles

To inform both keep and change name discussions:

• Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and subcategories:
  • Category:Non-governmental_organizations_involved_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process
  • Category:Human rights organizations based in Israel
  • Category:Human rights organizations based in the Palestinian territories
  • Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups

Other Relevant categories currently used:

• Category:Anti-Zionism
  • Category:Jewish anti-Zionism
• Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States
  • Category:Foreign policy and strategy think tanks in the United States

Need to check if properly categorized

• • Category:Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts
  • Category:Israeli anti-war activists
  • Category:Boycotts of Israel
  • Category:Protests in the Palestinian territories

Categories we may need to create

• Category:Anti-occupation groups for groups with that as main or one of several goals; with nation subcategories like Category:American anti-occupation groups
• Category:Israel lobby (include some nation subcategories) (Needs article too for all lobbies worldwide))
• Category:Palestine lobby (include some nation subcategories)(Needs article too for all lobbies worldwide)

Relevant article: Anti-Zionism (that's where Anti-Israel redirects to.
Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis
from: CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol's change to the lead

Carol, your change in the lead that "anti-Israel lobby is a phrase used almost exclusively by pro-Israel writers and organizations" is in direct contradiction to the last paragraph of the section on history. If you want to say this, you have to support it somehow in the body of the article. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me I just moved that up from lower down in the lead - I don't know who put it there but I think it is an appropriate summary, especially since I'm taking out all the sources and info that do NOT label a group anti-Israel, unless someone else already has. But those sources themselves don't count toward the lead if they don't use the phrase. You have to admit it's less wordy. Also, please remove my name from the section title since some could consider that WP:harass. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol did the same in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and edit-warred out any additions (several others did as well). It's really offense to tag organizations with "Pro-Israel, Pro-Jew, etc.." in such a pejorative manner. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed Wikifan's comment above. I can't even figure out/remember what you are referring to another article in first sentence, so how does it edify this discussion? Second sentence makes even less sense, since it would seem to argue against the very title of this article, which you have voted not to change. Please be more clear in your comments. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

History section

I've removed the history section of the article, because it only lists two books from 2002 that discuss the "anti-Israel lobby". I've found sources for the term from as far back as the 1970s, but I can't find any reliable source about the history of the term - that is, I'm unsure who originally coined it. By the way, this article may be a very good source for discussing the history of the term "anti-Israel lobby". It's by William Safire in 1976, and labels Spiro Agnew, "hawks" in the States Department, "doves" among liberals and Jews, the Secretary of State, and anti-Semitic groups as making up the lobby. At the very least, this source can be used to expand the article. ← George ^[talk] 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My friends, I have a dream

My dream is that we can work together to produce a fine article on the important topic of this developing lobby in the United States. That we can do this through a process of true consensus, and that we can put aside our deepseated urges to bait the other side, and to reply with umbrage to posts which quite possibly were made with innocence.

To do this requires a tremendous act of will on everyone's part.

I know that the issues here run deep in each of us - myself included. But let us try, this once, to rise above the vitriol. Keep your posts directed to the subject at hand. Don't go roaming off the immediate topic, regardless of how great the urge. And cast your votes for or against with a spirit of cooperation and willingness to compromise for the sake of a consensus that embraces all our viewpoints end to end.

Do this for me. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't worked much on Israel lobby in the United States and haven't even read it lately, just a quick look at the structure is an example of a good way to describe groups that are networked to accomplish lobbying goals - assuming article renamed. Obviously the Israel lobby groups are much more tightly networked and better funded and united on their goals, but the variations can be reflected in a well written article on "opposition." Of course, there also must be an emphasis on what these groups are FOR, being it an even handed policy, getting all foreign lobbyists under control, opposition to specific policies, and supporting various alternatives, including the one that a Jewish state should never have been imposed by the big powers on Palestine, which is a legitimate anti-colonialist view point, as much as partisans might scream about it. (Also legitimate is view that Israelis had a right to self-determine a Jewish state on their justly acquired land, which is of course only a small percentage of what they currently occupy.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now here are the options:

• Do nothing.
• Rename the existing article and rewrite it.
• Leave the existing article and write a new article. When the existing article comes up for AfD in another month or so, decide then whether to keep it or not.

I would like to see complete consensus before doing anything. That means, if everyone doesn't agree, one side has to change its mind. Now vote again, and feel free to change your vote as voting progresses. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We could also attempt to improve this article while penning a new article as well; then allow nature to take its course. Or, perhaps, this article could be renamed something along the lines of "Anti-Israelism" or "Anti-Israeli sentiment" and its focus improved, seeing as how that is the nature of the lobbys which are opposed to Israel. There is already precedence for this in the articles on Anti-Americanism, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Armenianism etc..etc. There is an Anti-Zionism article already in existance, however it focuses on the whole of zionist opposition, not specifically the country of Israel and those who oppose her. --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't we already have Anti-Zionism? csloat (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, and I commented on that above, but Anti-Zionism is opposition to the founding of Israel or a Jewish state, which began in the 1800s. Where as Anti-Israel/Anti-Israeli sentiment is opposition to policy and existence of the current country of Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see that the latter category makes any sense. It includes two totally different things -- "opposition to policy" (shared by groups such as, say, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, or even Israeli organizations like Yesh Gvul) and "opposition to existence" of Israel (which might include organizations like Hamas, I suppose). Also, what of organizations like Citizens for Global Solutions, who probably opposed the "existence of the current country of Israel" as part of their opposition to all nation-states; would these organizations be included as well? The big problem here, I think, is there really is no organized "anti-Israel lobby" in the US; it's just a political neologism that has been used in certain contexts in a very imprecise manner. csloat (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If existing article is kept, what changes do you think are needed? Do you understand I have carefully sourced only what (just barely sometimes) WP:RS call by the phrase "Anti-Israel lobby"? We can't do an article about any group that is not thusly characterized by WP:RS - and the POV of the WP:RS must be noted. And the fact that most groups don't WANT to be characterized that way means that some general caveats that groups do not describe themselves that way (like my new lead entry on those who deny it) OR actual denials must be included or it's violation of WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned wrote above: Where as Anti-Israel/Anti-Israeli sentiment is opposition to policy and existence of the current country of Israel. Again, according to which WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by rough consensus, not complete consensus. Also, you don't need any consensus to start a new article. —Ashley Y 07:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "anti-Israel lobby"?

It might be beneficial if we were to try to identify the different groups that are included in the "anti-Israel lobby". I'm going to start a list based on what I've read. Please feel free to expand it. ← George ^[talk] 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those that oppose Israeli policies.
  • Those who think that Israel violates the human rights of Palestinians.[1]
  • Those who think Israel is intransigent.[2]
  • Those who oppose some Israeli foreign policy (usually towards Iran, Syria, or Lebanon).
• Those that oppose U.S. policies.
  • U.S. government officials who favor close ties to oil-rich Arab countries over close ties to Israel, in the name of America's self-interest.[3]
  • Those who are worried about how close ties to Israel affects perceptions of the U.S. abroad.
  • American corporations with interests in Arab countries.[4]
• (Some) African Americans.[5]
• Those that are anti-Semitic.[6]

WP:original research. The only groups that can be included are groups actually described as being part of the "pro-Israel lobby" by a WP:RS source. Please read previous talk. Editors can't just decide who is and is not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to add this list directly to the article. I'm just trying to get a general idea of what reliable sources label as members of the "anti-Israel lobby". It's not a bad idea to add citations for items in the list, of course. ← George ^[talk] 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't think of this as a list meant to list all groups in a given segment as part of the lobby. Think of this more like being possible section headings for the article, with properly source individuals and groups listed in the sections. ← George ^[talk] 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion should wait/remove tag?

I don't think you are supposed to initiate a merge discussion in the middle of a name change RFC. Could you please remove that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the name has changed with "lobby" deleted, this tag SHOULD be removed and I will do so soon, especially given that the tagger hasn't bothered to explain their reasoning, including in light of the change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stict guidelines for including individuals/groups per WP:BLP and WP:Libel

Again people are adding stuff without proving that a WP:RS has called individuals/group an "anti-Israel lobby" or at least a "lobby" group that is "anti-Israel." Since being called anti-Israel is pretty much like being called anti-Semitic and most people will deny it, there are strict guidelines. The current sources on Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land does not provide quotes to show that those terms are used. Please provide the information or these will be removed very soon per WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

CArol, these people are all dead.Historicist (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a books.google search and neither book included the phrase "anti-Israel," not to mention "anti-ISrael lobby," so the whole section should be deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me.2Fmy_organization_is_an_attack.21_What_can_I_do.3F specifically links libel, BLP and organizations, so this is wikipedia policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This hardly applies. The people who founded the Committee, such as Virginian Gildersleeve describes herself as adamantly opposed to a Jewish State in the Land of Israel on any terms whatsoever. She wrote this in her own memoir and in a large number of published articles and statements. Quoting her to this effect can hardly be an attack on her. The same applies to Jermit Roosevelt, Jr. and the organizations other members.Historicist (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that several of the cited books do not appear on books google or only some pages appear
• that this is a history section, these are sources from the late forties or early fifties and several of these books say "anti-Zionist", a phrase current at the time. sometimes you really do have to go to a library.
• and that the organization in question, Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, is documented in these sources as having been founded for the purpose of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state or homeland, and continued for the purpose of opposing the existence of Israel after it was created. In thises conditions, it is a tad, er... arbitrary of User:Carolmooredc to demand that every source cited include the phrase "anti-Israel"
• I would argue that 1.) if an organization opposes the very existence of a a Jewish State in the Holy Land on any terms whatsoever, we can call it anti-Israel and cite sources that that call the organization "anti-Zionist.
• I would further argue that as we go along, organizations that lobby to oppose American foreign aid and arms sales to Israel may, with proper sourcing, be included in this article.Historicist (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The two books I alluded to do appear on books.google. A search will tell you if a phrase is there, even if it will not show you the page.
• This article is about "anti-ISrael lobby." If she was an Anti-Zionist (something you have not proved with any relevant quotes), the info belongs in that article. Please move it there; I'll be glad to and let editors at that page decide what to do with it.
• It is hardly arbitrary. You don't find discussion of "Israel lobby" sources in Jewish lobby, only sources that specifically mention term "Jewish lobby."
• Your argument for including people who have views you consider "anti-Israel" without a WP:RS so labeling them is WP:original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. You would need a source making that argument and applying it to the term "anti-Israel." Do I need to take it to the Original Research noticeboard for outside opinions?
• Considering that most organizations object to be labeld "anti-Israel," just like they object to being labeled "antisemitic," there are still defamation issues with existing organizations if it is said by an editor as their WP:OR and not a reliable source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why lead must include phrase used predominantly by pro-Israelis

It is clear that we only will find strongly pro-Israel people using this phrase therefore the lead should start with: "The anti-Israel lobby is a term used predominantly by pro-Israel authors and writers to describe groups that ...." with some NPOV summary of what Raffel says. (I just took the most NPOV statement from early on.)

WP:Lead reads: The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article....The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1]

Obviously, we can summarize the fact that our sources are mostly pro-Israel (didn't I see some refs on that fact somewhere?) and obviously the only reason this is notable is because a bunch of pro-Israel people choose to use the term. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, evidently everyone agrees. :-) The fact that there are no sources that are not obviously very pro-Israel supports having a SUMMARY of the fact that those are largely the sources using the phrase. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

US lobby against Israeli Occupation

I've moved an old version of this page to US lobby against Israeli Occupation where this lobby can be treated in an WP:NPOV way. This permits this article to remain in the way it has evolved, to focus on the use of the "anti-Israel lobby" term. This obviates the need for a move. Caveat: "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" is not perhaps the best title, but it's the best I can come up with which meets WP:NPOV. Better suggestions welcome. Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the new page needs more work reframing for WP:NPOV, away from defining these groups in the words and from the point of view of their political opponents, which had also coloured the emphasis and choice of who to highlight. Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you did this - it seems precipitous. I was hoping for consensus among the editors here before making such a move.

Now that it is done, I believe the title you chose is not successful. The occupation is not the only issue on which these groups lobby. There is also the matter of US aid to Israel, allegations of human rights violations by Israel arms sales to Israel, arms sales to other Middle East countries (which the Israeli lobby opposes), and more. The title which had been discussed was "Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States", which I believe is a more accurate title for the information contained in the article.

But let's continue the discussion on the new page. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually a move of this page because the old version used is so radically different from the current one. It's more of a split (into subject/pejorative label), inspired by that evolution, which also rescues a stack of deleted material. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The material was a massive WP:SYN violation; there was no need to "rescue" it. Now we have another POV fork of questionable encyclopedic content. csloat (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a WP:SYN violation when it was attempting to construct an image of an "anti-Israel lobby". I don't see how a cleaned-up version of that page will be SYN for the topic it now covers. Rd232 ^talk 06:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression an Admin decides if name should be changed; I don't know if here is sufficient consensus, but shouldn't we wait and see? Also, I agree against occupation way to narrow. Doesn't include lots of things, including opposition to its nuclear weapons threat (which of course is how they maintain the occupation).

Also just noticed that a sourced definition of the anti-Israel lobby was replaced with an editor's WP:OR definition using this article. A no no!! Reverted it. However, thinking about it, as long as against occuption includes groups that want right of return and end to Israel as a ("colonial") state, it may be sufficiently comprehensive.

However, just searched "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got one non-wiki link and "lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got two non-wiki links so the name could be challenged on that basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME is not a core 5-pillar WP policy. WP:NPOV is. Find a better NPOV title if you can. Rd232 ^talk 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some things: (a) this was not a move. The original page exists. (b) this is not a fork - the content is radically different, coming from a radically different old version of that page, and there is a clear difference of focus (on the subject, vs on the term) (c) "Israeli Occupation" may usefully be construed very broadly, and cover a range of Israeli policies related to sustaining the occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories. (d) US support for Israel in ways relevant to the occupation could be covered here too, or else in a separate article (e) separate articles can still be created for related topics, eg Opposition to the Israel lobby in the US, a move still under debate at Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the material existed before doesn't make it any less of a POV fork. If you can't find sources discussing this lobby in context, then it's a WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it WP:SYN? Are you saying these organisations don't exist, don't oppose the Israeli occupation, that they do but the sources don't support that, or what? Surely you're not saying that the collective activities of these organisations can't be described unless we give them the label invented by their political opponents in order to disparage them? Please explain your thinking. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it's a synthesis of original sources to create a claim that doesn't exist in those sources. The idea that these organizations are part of some overall lobby or movement against Israeli occupation (or against the Israel lobby) does not seem to be supported by these sources independently but only by stringing them together. What's more, many of these organizations have other agendas and goals; picking one of the items on their various agendas and bringing them together under one heading based on that item is suspect, IMHO. csloat (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, a lot of the sources are primary and we need (more) secondary. Id be very surprise if they couldn't be found. Such secondary sources might also help resolve the "other agenda" issue. There is clearly a bundle of overlapping, related opinions/groups on this topic which merit coverage together. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The good news is the name changed to more accurate Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation. The bad news is it is still a knock off of the old version of this article which was pretty much an attack article. I've cleaned up some of the most obnoxious stuff but more to do. I think the creator should become more involved in making it a better article. Frankly, technically it probably could be AfD'd as a knockoff if it is not substantially changed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a knockof (POVfork?), since that article is about the lobby, and this article is about a particular label for that lobby. And whilst it needs (massive) improvement, it's not an attack article now (thanks for contribs), and WP:DEADLINE. I came across this dispute and was motivated enough to try and help a little, but I'm not about to start getting heavily involved in editing. Rd232 ^talk 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting an article as a stub with some good WP:RS is one thing. For future reference, taking a mass of controversial material and putting it a brand new article is something editors only should do if they are committed to helping clean it up fairly quickly. Now others have to do that before they can even do anything constructive with the article, so it's a bunch of discouraging old baggage to deal with. This will be the second time I have to go through the same set of sources to prove most of them do not directly discuss the topic, in this case groups that are opposed to the occupation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated a yawn-inducingly large number of times, the title was an attempt to find a WP:NPOV-compliant way of describing the groups that oppose the occupation, its execution, and US support for that. The sources absolutely support that general topic, so before you start removing everything that isn't "Opposed To The Occupation", consider what we're actually trying to achieve here, which to describe a real phenomenon without using a label coined by opponents. Also much of the controversy related to housing that phenomenon under that label. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Friends Service Committee

I object to the removal of American Friends Service Committee, and their rebuttal to the charge.

One of the general problems with this entry is that we have obscure sources calling organizations and individuals anti-Israel, and because they're so obscure, they're generally unnoticed and no one bothers to rebut them.

The American Friends Service Committee is one of the few examples of an organization whose members have rebutted these charges. By the principle of free expression, I'm tolerant of these attacks -- but only if you're equally tolerant and allow the rebuttal.

If, when an organization is attacked, and they come up with an articulate rebuttal, you delete the attack and the rebuttal, you're violating WP:NPOV.

If you won't allow a single rebuttal to these charges of being anti-Israel, and you won't come up with a rebuttal that is acceptable to you, then that gives strong evidence that this article violates WP:NPOV and should be deleted after all. Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is framed as being about a term used by pro-Israel groups to denigrate their political opponents, then rebuttals should be reported but their absence matters less. If it is framed as the correct term for a bunch of organisations which do not agree with being labelled in that way, then no amount of rebuttal is going to make it NPOV. So I'm disappointed that people keep removing my lede para which provides this NPOV framing (diff). If we can't agree on this NPOV framing, the article should be deleted or moved to an NPOV title. Rd232 ^talk 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your lede was NPOV, and the diff rewrote it to quote Caroline Glick, a partisan.

I think there's a problem with WP:WEIGHT. If these books and articles are so obscure that only 3 libraries in the world have them, and you have to travel to Toronto to verify them, then it's not a mainstream view. According to WP:WEIGHT:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

I don't understand how anyone could argue that this article isn't disputed. --Nbauman (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First, Nbauman, have you read Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Stict_guidelines_for_including_individuals.2Fgroups_per_WP:BLP_and_WP:Libel above? That explains wikipolicy quite clearly. Sources must call an organization (or individual) both anti-Israel and a lobbyist or it's WP:OR.

Rd232, as you know I also have removed or supported removal of your putting in Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation, not because it's a bad article (since I'm going to clean it up soon), but because it is just one of many NPOV characterizations of these groups. Others include Anti-Zionist which many groups DO call themselves and Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis. One-state solution is another.

I can't respond the person who's comment ends with "minority view" since they didn't sign - I assume that is not Nbauman? Except to say, that the whole article is about a phrase used frequently by a minority of partisans but rarely used by mainstream sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's Nbauman, who indented a quote from WP:WEIGHT in the middle of his comment. Rd232 ^talk 10:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Italicizing quotes helps for those of us who read too fast to get the point sometimes. Frankly, I'm confused on what the debate is here. Identifying who said what? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

LoverOfTheRussianQueen complained when I replaced the POV tag.

Is there anyone who agrees with me that the neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed?

Is there anyone on this discussion who thinks that neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is not disputed?

Nbauman (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

disputed, unless rebuttals from each of the organizations are listed. nableezy - 15:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

feel free to add such rebuttals. Nbauman also added a BLP tag - what is the BLP issue? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The first issue I see is Pat Buchanan. Medoff never explicitly labels him as a member of the "anti-Israel Lobby". He says Buchanan is critical of the "AIPAC lobby", and he says that Buchanan labelled Congress "Israeli-occupied territory" (a reference to the Israeli lobby's influence in Congress), and he even suggests that Buchanan's remarks are a modern spin on anti-Semitic ideas of Jews controlling the government, but he never explicitly says he's a member of the "anti-Israel lobby". I don't think that the current wording about Buchanan passes BLP... ← George ^[talk] 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Medoff says all that, AND places it in a section titled "Case Study: The anti-Israeli Lobby". I think you are splitting hairs here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons we can't add rebuttals is that the concept of the "anti-Israel lobby" isn't WP:NOTABLE. The subject doesn't have significant coverage. Books that are only available in three libraries in the world are not significant or notable. Because it's not significant, the subjects have not bothered to respond. So we can't supply rebuttal.

I think we should try for deletion again, on the grounds that the subject of the article is not notable. It's specifically about people and organizations who have had the exact phrase "the anti-Israel lobby" used about them. When I try to find examples in WP:RS (not blogs), the instances are so rare, that it's not notable. When I do a Google search, most of what I find in the WSJ and so forth is vague accusations against people and organizations who aren't even specifically accused by name. --Nbauman (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to have it both ways - claiming that it's POV because there are no rebuttals, and when asked to add the rebuttals, claim that there aren't any because it's not notable. Notability has been established by the recent AfD, so please drop this argument, which has no legs (The WSJ is a mainstream publication, as is the Jerusalem Post, as is an academic book published by a Yale professor, which is found in 158 libraries (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50598153), not 3.) LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the AfD and the requested move above shows me that this article will not be deleted; too many self-proclaimed defenders of Israel will shout too loud for a consensus to be reached. There isnt even a point in trying to get this article to be NPOV, it wont last. Im just waiting for the move request to finish so I can take this piece of excrement off my watchlist. Suggest any other reasonable people who wish to retain their sanity and faith in Wikipedia stop looking at this article. nableezy - 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on content, not editors. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That was focused on content. There was one comment in there about editors. The rest was about the article. For somebody who has only been here a month you seem to have a handle on all the regular quips. makes me hear quacking. nableezy - 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not focused on content, but on editors, as is your comment above. Please stop it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, one line "too many self-proclaimed defenders of Israel will shout too loud for a consensus to be reached" focused on editors (but really also the content of the AfD and the requested move). The rest, like calling the article "excrement" was not. Stop quacking. nableezy - 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That line focused on editors, in an inappropriate way, as did the line "Suggest any other reasonable people who wish to retain their sanity and faith in Wikipedia stop looking at this article.". Just don't do it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice. However, I do wish to retain my sanity and my faith in this place so bye. nableezy - 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> I think both sides agree with POV for different reasons. Didn't notice Buchanan NOT described as part of anti-Israel lobby and he'll be taken out next time I go through. As I say elsewhere see WP:Libel and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me.2Fmy_organization_is_an_attack.21_What_can_I_do.3F (which mentions BLP issues for organizations) for established policies against WP:attack page articles and of course WP:Original research being used to support them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)