Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 31 August 2006

Areas for Improvement

Some initial thoughts. --Ben Houston 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Coverage of "the visible campaign undertaken in 1982 by the Israeli lobby to defeat pro-Arab Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois" (Bard's words)
• Coverage of real anti-Semitism that involves conspiracy theories about the Israel lobby and Jewish influence.
• More coverage of the origins -- the sources I had didn't really cover it.
• Integration of more sources into the article.

Word of Caution: This article is not Mearsheimer-Walt

Unlike the article about the controversial John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper, this article is not about making the argument that Mearsheimer and Walt were making: that the Israel lobby has excessive and detrimental to US interests -- that debate can stay in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This is an article that covers the "Israel lobby" in a board and NPOV descriptive way and as such coverage of the Mearsheimer-Walt "Israel lobby" paper controversy should at most be a small subsection. --Ben Houston 01:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of article?

Is this an article about the POV of Mitchell Bard? If that is the case this violates WP:NPOV, that reads: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.

Suggest to merge any useful information with Israel-United_States_relations ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point Jossi. I marked it as a stub for the time being basically because, when I put it together yesterday evening, I relied mostly on one reference. Your criticism is useful and I'll expand it today to address it. Thank you. I also created this article Arab lobby in the United States -- could you have a look at it as well? Best. --Ben Houston 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should note that there is a whole category devoted to Category:United States-Israeli relations. It is not necessary to merge all articles on the topic into one super article. --Ben Houston 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, but having an article that presents the POV of a single person is frowned upon, in particular when the subject is controversial. See WP:POVFORK ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some are scared of this topic, but as long as you stay away from the crack pots its pretty average stuff. The source, Bard, is the executive director of a group that promotes the US-Israel relationship and also runs the Jewish Virtual Library -- he is just talking honest about a subject he is very close to. The merger into The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy isn't really appropriate -- that article's thesis is that the Israel lobby influences US foreign policy to the determent to the US's interests, that is a controversial thesis. This article is not about that thesis. Requiring that any discussion of the ISrael lobby be centered around that thesis is unreasonable and leads implicitly to NPOV coverage of the issue. Also, you are aware that the second sentence of the AIPAC article is this one: "Describing itself as 'America's Pro-Israel Lobby,' it is a mass-membership organization including both Jews and non-Jews, and is considered one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States." The existence of a Israel lobby or Pro-Israel lobby is not in question, but there is currently no article that covers the full topic it in an NPOV fashion. This is what I am aiming for. The trick is to stay precise and use good sources. --Ben Houston 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Some are scared of this topic"? Ben, the problem I see is that some people are obsessed with this topic! As for your discussion of a merger, I was not aware that a Misplaced Pages article was supposed to have a "thesis." I thought it is supposed to have a topic, and this article and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy have the same topic. If the latter article also has a "thesis," especially if it is as you describe it, then that needs to be corrected by editing to make the article NPOV, and this one-source article should be merged into it. 6SJ7 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your are misunderstanding something key: The article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is about a paper (the title of the paper is, coincidentally "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy") that puts forward a very specific and very controversial thesis. Thus when I say "thesis" I was refering to the thesis of that working paper that is the topic of that article.

In contrast, this article's topic is the boarder topic of the Israel lobby with the goal of putting things into context. I am still working on the article and incorporating more sources. --Ben Houston 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I also thought that when you said "article" you were talking about a Misplaced Pages article, not an article somewhere else that is the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. But that underlines the big problem here, on which I agree with Jossi. A working paper here and article there, all about essentially the same topic, should not each have their own article on Misplaced Pages, it should be part of a single article about the subject. There are probably only a handful of individual articles and working papers that are individually notable enough to warrant their own article (see for example, X Article.) 6SJ7 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certainly notable. It stirred enormous controversy when it appeared, and has been commented on in mulitiple publications from all kinds of POV. For example, a recent issue of the magazine Foreign Policy was devoted to reponses to The Israel Lobby from several different authors. Sanguinalis 01:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. My mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge with The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Yet, it would be better to merge all the POVs into one article that describes them rather than separate ones, as these are actually POV forks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I think the title should be "Conspiracy theories about the 'Israel lobby'". 6SJ7 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the Israel lobby? My sources at the moment are Jewish Virtual Library, The New Yorker, the Washington Post, The Nation, Foreign Policy in Focus and the New York Review of Books. Also, AIPAC describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby" -- thus there is no need to put "Israel lobby" in scare quotes. We should have a section that describes why some feel that there is no Israel lobby and also in the section on anti-Semitic conspiracies we should include the debate where the line should be drawn between reasonable debate and conspiracy theories. --Ben Houston 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax, I was mostly kidding about the title. As for there being a pro-Israel lobby, of course there is, there is also a Saudi Arabia lobby, a dairy lobby, a China lobby, an aviation industry lobby, and hundreds if not thousands of others, but I do not see them attracting similar amounts of attention. 6SJ7 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"I do not see them attracting similar amounts of attention." Did you know that yesterday I first wrote the article Arab lobby in the United States. When I started to link these articles to others they were in relatively equivalent states. Here are the versions of both articles at the time I called it a night Israel lobby in the United States and Arab lobby in the United States. Since then, to no real surprise on my part, only this article has attracted criticism, so much that people have questioned whether it deserves to exist. Naturally, I have responded to the concerns of critics by putting more effort into the article. This results in this article being longer and more developed than the one I wrote on the Arab lobby -- which, it seems, opens me to criticism, such as yours, that I am giving disproportionate attention into this article. Honestly, think about this for a second -- is the cause of this disproportionate attention really just me or is there something more going on here? My strong belief is that the cause of the disproportionate attention to this area as a whole both in Misplaced Pages and in the media is the result of a complex interaction between a number of factors, it is not as simple as your off hand criticism of the disproportionate attention suggests at first glance. --Ben Houston 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge, the other article is about one specific paper, and both articles are very long. —Ashley Y 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they need to be summarized in one main article with links to sub-articles. As it stands now these are obvious POV forks, and in violation of NPOV≈ jossi ≈ t • @

These are not POV forks. One article is about the lobby, the other about one particular working paper. —Ashley Y 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you are coming to the conclusion that this article is POV. Can you be more specific about how and where it should be improved? Also, in what direction is the current POV leaning in your opinion? --Ben Houston 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge. The term "Israel lobby" is used with considerably wider scope than the "official" Israel lobby (AIPAC). JFW | T@lk 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, as per NPOV, needs to describe all significant viewpoints. Creating articles that describe one viewpoint while omitting others is in violation of that policy (see WP:POVFORK. What needs to be done is to create one main article in which the main viewpoints are described (but not asserted), and only then have sub-articles that may expand on each viewpoint if that is warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As ther the POV tag, this article violates NPOV as per Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=0#Fairness_of_tone ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article violates NPOV, then that needs to be corrected. But The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is not a fork of this article. It's an article about one specific paper that happens to be titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". It's far too long to merge into here. —Ashley Y 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot have articles about a single POV, in particular when there are competing views.

1. Create an article in which 'all viewpoints are presented, including these of different papers
2. Summarize the significant viewpoints
3. Create or link to articles that expand on each viewpoint

That ois the way to remain compliant with WP content policies. As it stands now, the article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy violates NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy violates NPOV, please discuss it there. There's been a lot of back-and-forth on that article, but it seems to have settled down and doesn't currently have an NPOV tag on it. —Ashley Y 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the merge. This article is about the Israeli lobby, and the other is about a specific paper. I know this point has been made already, I'm just seconding it. Sanguinalis 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating a merge. Read what I said and provide counter arguments if any. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Can we remove the merge tags, then? —Ashley Y 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is going to happen, nor do I think it would be wise to merge the articles. The article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is incredibly controversial and attempting to merging it into this article would likely result in the quality of this article to deteriorate into schizophrenic-like collections of disconnected partisan statements.

It may interest Jossi though that I just created two disambiguation pages that help to clarify to readers how a number of these articles relate to each other:

• Israel lobby (disambiguation)
• Jewish lobby (disambiguation)

I would appreciated feedback on these. --Ben Houston 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Define the Definer

Who is Mitchell Bard who is referred to as the capacity on the Israel lobby in the United States?

Mitchel Bard's biography on Jewish Virtual Library. --Ben Houston 08:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now this article needs to be called Mitchel Bard's views on Israel's lobbying in the USA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do rely on him a lot, he is a uniquely (at least in my readings) reliable source. I have expanded the article considerably since your first comment to include many other views. For most claims in the article, multiple sources are used in order to reflect multiple perspectives -- a reader, I hope, will be left with a nuanced understanding. --Ben Houston 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Can NPOV tag be removed/moved to specific sections?

Hi Jossi. I am running out of obvious improvements to the article as a whole in order to better reflect a neutral point of view. Although it is obvious that at least two sections need work -- but I am not sure that their deficiencies fit as POV problems. Can we remove the NPOV tag or at least move it to the sections you feel are NPOV? I know you have pointed me to specific Misplaced Pages policies but your only specific criticism of article content has been its previous reliance on only one source, an issue that I have, at least in my reading of the article, addressed. Best. --Ben Houston 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it through and it seems to me to be non-neutral, just a collection of sources with an antagonistic POV against Jews. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The way you can resolve this is by describing the debate first, rather than last, and renaming this article Israel lobby in the United States debate, otherwise the title is an assertion of fact. It would also help consolidating Bard's and Mearsheimer and Walt' stuff into their own sections rather than spread throughout the article. The article lead needs also work, because as it is reads now it does not describe the controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to do just that, but as I am not too familiar with the subject, it may need fine-tuning. The idea would be to focus the article on the debates related to this subject, rather than assert the viewpoint of one or two authors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose classifying all those sections as solely the opinion of Bard, Mearsheimer and Walt -- you don't have any facts to back up that up, nor are they the only people used in that large section. I think you are not acting with "precision." Our problems communicating may be best understood by my scores on the test you have featured on your userpage: I am first a "Materialist", second a "Modernist", and I score lowest on "Idealist" and "Cultural Creative" -- almost the polar opposite of you. --Ben Houston 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Lumping together blindly Bard, Mearsheimer and Walt is really nonsensical. They only agree on a few things and disagree on a lot more. For example, please read through Bard's strong critique of Mearsheimer and Walt. I repeat, from my perspective, you seem to not be thinking about this with precision. --Ben Houston 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I should say thanks thought for sharing the details of why you felt the article is NPOV -- I do appreciate your time and thoughts on this matter. It is useful to understand your take on things even though I do disagree with it. --Ben Houston 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my disclaimer above, I am not fully familiar with the subject, but by reading the text it seems that it quite a bit of text is entirely related to two authors. Feel free to make necessary changes, but I would argue that it would be best to place all comments of specific authors in their own sections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put "Toofewopinion" templates in both the "structure" and in the "means of influence", although I did restore their original names the Bard-Mearsheimer-Walt section title wasn't very accurate -- those are the problematic sections I understand from your perspective. I think that as more opinions are added, we can break those sections up into subsections focusing on the existing distinct takes people have -- right now there are not really opposing views in those sections since I centralized most of the disagreements into the "Debates" section. I also moved the "arab lobby" section back into the section "Other special interest groups" (renamed as "Relations to special interest groups") because it really is another, competing in this case, special interest group. Now that I think about your move, it does seem appropriate to put a "Toofewopinions" tag on the "arab lobby" section -- I'll do that now. I'll also put one on that whole Arab lobby in the United States article. I also did restore the lead that SlimVirgin refined from my original since I view the debates as only a part of the article -- not the focus -- and if you didn't know, it is a rare thing for SlimVirgin and me to find common ground. --Ben Houston 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed relationship to "Jewish lobby" slur

The following was removed by SlimVirgin. I thought it served a useful purpose though:

"The term "Israel lobby" is preferred over the less common term "Jewish lobby" because a large proportion of the lobby is made up of non-Jews and the inclusion of "Israel" best "reflects the lobby’s objective." Additionally, the term "Jewish lobby" is regarded as an anti-Semitic slur used to allege that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, and international finance. "

--Ben Houston 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing

This article is basically just a list of quotes. It needs to be written as a story, a narrative. SlimVirgin 23:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think that we are missing a few crucial sections though -- one in particular, a history, needs a good narrative structure as well as just simple material. Also, since this is a factual article, there does not have to be too strong of a narrative arc and I think that there is a risk that too strong of a narrative arc can be misleading and also make it difficult to integrate new material.

BTW, you might be glad to know that I was at my alma mater's library today, in part to research anti-Semitism and new anti-Semitism from real life books! --Ben Houston 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Jossi's reorganization, Is the article focus's the "debate"?

I don't really agree with Jossi's rearrangement and refocusing of the article. To be specific, User:Jossi has rearranged the article so the "Debate" and "Other special interest groups" sections come before the more explanatory "Structure" and "Means of influence" sections. He has inserted as the first sentence in the article:

"The Israel lobby in the United States debate is related to the influence excerted by certain groups and individuals in American policy in support of Israel."

I really do not think the focus of the article is the debate -- thus I disagree with this structural change and the accuracy of the new lead sentence. --Ben Houston 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure and means of influences are sections that reflect the viewpoint of a single author, presented as assertions of fact, or presented in isolation from other viewpoints. As I have expressed many time before, this article needs to be neutral in its presentation, but many sections read in the style of advocacy journalism and not as an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I did add the Toofewopinions tags to the sections you had problems with -- let's add more viewpoints. --Ben Houston 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that while you are rising concerns about my edits, you keep reverting to your own version of the lead again and again. So, if you want to edit alone, just tell me. I do not want to waste my time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi - I reverted the lead only once to SlimVirgin's version and it was after we talked about it. You then added back in your sentence about the debate (although you left the original lead, which was kind of you) and I left it, instead I wrote about my concerns on this talk page. Then came in User:Sanguinalis who removed your lead sentence in this edit: .

Feel free to restore your lead. --Ben Houston 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is definitely a WP:OWN problem with this article. 6SJ7 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am just following the model of experienced editor User:SlimVirgin on New Anti-Semitism. That said, it would be mistaken to think that have been revert crazy -- I didn't revert SlimVirgins edits to this page, Sanguinalis edits, nor was I the one that reverted Jossi's latest. I also wasn't the one that removed the NPOV tag from the article. Nor was I the one that removed the merge template on the article. --Ben Houston 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section: Zunes' Theory

I think there is major section missing now -- something like a discussion of why Israel can be seen as a strategic asset and that is why it is supported and the lobby is just a distraction for the most part -- or it may be outside of the scope of this article since it doesn't directly involve the Israel lobby. The hints of this new section is covered a bit in the new (and admitted not well presented) Lobbying for a U.S. client state section. It is interesting in that the U.S. could desire a militarized and semi-threatened Israel and that the domestic Israel lobby helps ensure this remains by making analysis and criticism of this relationship difficult. The right wing of the lobby is only dominant over the left-wing and appears to have influence because it says and pushes for what the administration wants to happen. Those in the lobby with desirable views (right-wing) are courted, rather than the other way around. In a way, it turns the lobby and Israel into things that are being used and potentially to their detriment. One has to think past "friendship" as a basis for the relationship for a moment and actually talk about things in terms of realist national interest. That Zunes' guy is pretty amazing. --Ben Houston 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of my own personal understanding, I now favor something similar to the above theory by Zunes. It best fits all the evidence and it explains why most of the minor parties involved (who each only have a partial, local and egocentric understanding of what is going on) views things the way they do. --Ben Houston 07:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break to avoid WP:OWN issues.

I agree with User:6SJ7 in that my numerous edits of this article as of late have made it hard for others to contribute. Thus I will take a break from editing this article for a while. --Ben Houston 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference JVLMitchellBard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Barkat, Amiram, An American Jewish lobby at the European Union, Ha'aretz, accessed August 29 2006
3. Sackur, Stephen Analysis: America's new Christian Zionists, May 7 2002, accessed August 29 2006
4. Ramadan, Tariq. "Muslims and Anti-Semitism", UN Chronicle, June 10, 2005.
5. Aaronovitch, David. "Message to the left: there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby", The Guardian, May 27, 2003

• Peer review requests not specifying archive