Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

message: I would suggest that all articles about this subject are merged into one article wich can describe all signficant POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the debate around this paper (this article is about a paper entitled, coincidentally "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"), because of its intensity and breath, remain in this, its own, article.  This article actually does cover the thesis of the article and the response in an NPOV fashion, at least in my opinion -- there is a long and detailed response and criticism section.  --Ben Houston 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge; POV forks 

message: Marvin Kalb is a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, founding director (now Senior Fellow) of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy there, Faculty Chair for the Kennedy School's Washington programs, and Edward R. Murrow Professor of Press and Public Policy from 1987 to 1999. This on top of his distinguished career in journalism. He is not an "administrator", and his opinion is certainly notable. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvin Kalb 

message: JAYJG deleted the following w/o discussion. I believe it belongs in the article b/c much of the criticism is that Walt & Mearsh have no factual basis for their findings
*According to a scientific public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06. 40% of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question was used.	 
		 
*"Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"
*Best Wishes Will314159 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls pretty much find what they want to find, particularly Zogby polls. In any event, the poll was not about this paper. This article is about Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, it's not a debating board for discussing whether or not there really is a nefarious Israeli lobby controlling America. Please avoid trying to use original research to refute sourced arguments or statements you find listed in articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is merely about the paper -- not about the border subject.  I have instead added the poll to the correct article on the general topic: Israel lobby in the United States.  Me and Tom harrison adjusted the wording slightly to be more precise.  --Ben 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zogby Poll confirms factual Basis 

message: I'm going to remove all the "External links" that I find that are duplicates of references. I assume no-one objects. —Ashley Y 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate links 

message: Could be integrated into the article as it covers the subject at hand:
* Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?, New York Times, January 14 2006.
Also talks about Abe Foxman, Tony Judt, Israel lobby in the United States and Jimmy Carter (in the context of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid).
--70.48.240.99 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure there's enough there on the paper to be worth quoting, but looks like it's relevant to the Foxman article. —Ashley Y 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT Magazine article in part on "The Israel Lobby" paper 

message: This is not about a "Jewish lobby" or Jews in congress, nor is there any reason to suppose that "Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel". —Ashley Y 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added List of Jewish American politicians back on the page because it is reasonable and entirely rational to assume that these Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel, which they quite obviously are (just look at their voting records). The Israel lobby in the United States leading descriptive quote says: "...defined by Mitchell Bard as 'those formal and informal actors that directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel'..." -- the key word there being FORMAL (I've bolded it), i.e. the Jewish American congresspeople (and other supporters of Israel in the U.S. govt.) are the FORMAL people that "directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel" -- the support of these Jewish American politicians is FORMAL and DIRECT, while the behind the scenes people are INFORMAL and INDIRECT. It is beyond question that they are the most ardent supporters of Israel; in fact, many have 2nd homes there, while others have extensive business and social contacts in Israel.  Many of these Jewish American politicians also have relatives that live in Israel, and nearly all of the current Jewish American politicians are members of or contributors to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, and so forth. Therefore, it's obvious that this link should stay on the page; it's only in the 'See also' section, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to leave it in.  --172.147.51.173 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in the paper that claims that Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel, and the issue is certainly not "beyond question". Bear in mind that congress generally is pretty pro-Israel, so I rather doubt that each and every person listed in List of Jewish American politicians is significantly more pro-Israel. A list of, say, contributors to AIPAC in congress would be relevant, but that's not the same as a list of Jewish American politicians. —Ashley Y 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a large majority of the current Jewish American politicians have relatives in Israel, own 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) homes there, and have significant business interests in the country, it's fair to say that they are as a group significantly more pro-Israel than your average government official -- it is for these reasons that I believe that this simple link should stay in.  Also, Israel is the "Jewish state," and naturally as Jews these American politicians will have close ties to the country. Again, I've only added this to the 'See also' section, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to you.  --172.165.208.12 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem: you're talking about "a large majority" rather than all of them, and "naturally will have close ties" rather than a proven link to them and only them. This is guesswork and mere association. In the paper, M&W are at pains to point out that this the Israel lobby is not a "Jewish lobby", and accordingly there are some very pro-Israel non-Jews in congress, and I suspect some Jews for whom Israel is not a big deal. —Ashley Y 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Specific individuals play key roles, thus we should include them if we have RS to support them.  Broad inclusions of just people with Jewish heritage is pretty fuzzy and not really helpful in encouraging a precise/accurate understanding of what is going on.  Also this isn't the appropriate article for the addition of specific individuals unless they are cited in the working paper that is the topic of this article.  Key individuals and organizations (when backed up with RS) would fit much better in the Israel lobby in the United States article.  --64.230.127.254 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a "Jewish Lobby" -- Add [[List of Jewish American politicians]]? 

message: I excised a huge portion of material added recently by Wardeagle999 for a number of reasons. First, it was entirely un-encyclopedic, at times completely casual in tone, meandering, and repetitive. Secondly, the tone and thesis of the paper is already summarized quite well in the already extant section "The Lobby" under the heading "Content". Thirdly, his additions contained much unsourced material and were somewhat POV — thus, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Inoculatedcities 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wardeagle999's additions

message: The section title "The Content", aside from being horribly written, appears to consist entirely of original research; that is, it lists dozens of cherry-picked quotations from the paper itself. Rather than doing so, the article should list what reliable third-parties have stated are the key elements of the paper. Unless someone can come up with a good reason for including this section, I'm recommending deletion. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone come up with anything yet? Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE stop butchering this article and related ones with all of these mass-deletions Jayjg...we need not mention your recent massive deletions on the closely related Israel lobby in the United States page, which resulted in the removal of huge amounts of valid/sourced material and links from mainstream sources and important commentators on this issue.  If anything, when it comes to very controversial and touchy topics like these, MORE INFORMATION IS ALWAYS BETTER; the more views that this article can incorporate from MULTIPLE and VARIED sources, the more neutral it will be since it will reflect as many sides of the issue(s) as possible. Also, have you ever tried ADDING info to articles rather than always DELETING stuff? --172.168.157.231 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me like the content section is trying to summarize the paper, mainly through the use of quotations, which I'm not sure counts as original research (along the lines of introducing a new theory or defining new terms, or advancing a position by combining information from different sources). It may be selectively quoting to push an agenda in violation of NPOV, but with so many quotes, I currently don't see which POV it's pushing other than the authors'. However, I agree though that listing dozens of quotations is not ideal, and I don't think it's a good way to present the information. I don't think I support simply deleting the entire section and sub-sections, but I would support rewriting the sections in non-quote-listing form, and would support using third parties who have said what they think is important. (Of course, if those third parties prominently feature David Duke and Jew Watch, this could become another rehash of an old issue.) In principle, I do not support removing the content section, or something that talks a bit about the content, because if we remove it all, we'll just be left with reactions, which doesn't encompass the item we're describing. I'm not sure if that's what's being suggested though. Organ123 04:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific quotes chosen are without doubt original research, and, in my view, intended to promote a POV. There has been so much third party commentary on this article that surely it is possible to come up with a summary of the major themes, using reliable secondary sources. And, although I'm not suggesting using them as a source, I think you'll find that what David Duke and Jew Watch think are the major themes are not that different from what various left-wing supporters of the paper think are the major themes. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this so long as opinions other than the authors' are not put forth in the "content" section. The paper itself has a summary section, and I think it would be nice to perhaps also include a block quote from that summary, since that is how the authors themselves summarized their work. I still don't see how the quotes are original research, but I guess that's irrelevant since I agree that the article is ill-served by using a big listing of quotations in the summary. I imagine other editors have thoughts too ... anyone? Or perhaps they will have opinions after changes are made. Organ123 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice of which quotes to include and which to exclude are original research; they aren't chosen randomly, but rather the person choosing has their own point that they which to make or emphasize. That's why we should rely on what secondary sources has said is important about the paper, not what Wikipedia editors think is important about the paper. Do you know anyone who is up to using secondary sources to do this? I'm not, but I don't have much patience for the original research quotefarm that is currently there, and plan to delete it soon regardless. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, please see WP:OWN. You can't just "plan to delete it [all] soon regardless," because this article is a slowly built agreement and consensus among many editors (and not just ONE like you) about what is appropriate here and what is not, what is 'OR' and what is not.  If you had your way you would bring this one and many others down to worthless stubs (because you just keep slowly chipping away at SO MANY good article and valid sources). Also, please stop using the invalid 'OR' excuse so much, because it is clear that much of Wikipedia is OR by default. This article merely QUOTES from MULTIPLE sources, including the right-wing, center/neutral, and left-wing -- there is nothing POV about that.  --172.168.157.231 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the choice of which quotes to include could lead to a particular point of view being unfairly emphasized, but I don't see that as original research. I do not support deleting the entire "content" section without replacing it with something better. I definitely think that the large "quotefarm" section is not helping the article. I think the section would be better served by a narrative-style summary that includes quotes as part of series of paragraphs. I'm also not totally sure how to proceed with getting third-party information on what is important without succumbing to highlighting the POVs of the third parties. (Like, if Fox News says "Here are the highlights," it will be different from if The Nation says the same.) At some level, the editors here will have to decide what is worth including and what isn't, whether we're deciding which third parties to reference or deciding which quotes to include ourselves.  I don't think that is original research in either case; I think it's a situation where the editors will need to agree on text that best summarizes the article and which they feel does not promote a particular POV. Organ123 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content section is not original research and it is quite disgusting, ironic and repulsive that a member trying to push his or her own POV has suggested this and not been thoroughly criticised for doing so. The lobby described in the article is working as we speak to ruin a very well expressed and written article. Reaper7 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Content" section 

message: The new book is 496 pages, so is more than just an "an enlarged version" of the paper. I think it deserves its own separate section. —Ashley Y 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book 

message: I created this table of contents by flipping through the book page-by-page and transcribing all of the section headers.  It is more detailed that the table of contents published at the start of the book.  --Lucretius 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book's table of contents

message: The book contents are much better organized than the contents of the original short paper.  I have posted the table of contents of the book above so that other Wikipedia editors can get a sense of it.  It is very dense reading and much of it is challenging to summarize in a succinct form.  I will in the next week try to summarize the final section entitled "What is to be Done?" as this part of the book, at least in my understanding, has no clear analog in the prior paper.  --Lucretius 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned update to "Contents" section

message: :Image:The-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy.jpg

message: I was just skimming through the Farsi copy of the article and I noticed that the summary and the positive assessments of the article are missing from the translation.  Only the sections dealing with criticism of the book have been translated.  That is mighty suspicious.  --Lucretius 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farsi translation: [[fa:لابی اسرائیل و سیاست خارجی آمریکا]] is only criticism 

message: Duplicity has removed an external link to my progressive critique  of the Walt-Mearsheimer book claiming that I have a conflict of interest in doing so.  I can find no Wikipedia rule that prohibits such a link.  To be clear, I derive no benefit whatsoever fr. such a link as my website is entirely non-profit.
The reason for the external link to my critique is that very few American Jews have written positively about the book.  I have done so.  I have a gradudate degree in this field & write reviews for American Conservative Magazine and have published at the L.A. Times, and The Guardian on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Some Wikipedia readers may want to delve further into the book and read the perspective I bring to bear on it in my own critique.  The link is meant to enrich the Wikipedia experience & not to benefit me personally.Richard (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted external link

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "LRB" :
** Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
** Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
DumZiBoT (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: This article has a lot of problems, but one thing that seems irrelevant is the CAIR speech section. It seems an attempt to make some POV/WP:original research point or other. They've given dozens of speeches since then. Why this one? It may be amusing to those who like to see the lobby knocked, but  how does it increase the encyclopedic value of the article? I think it should be removed. 
Also, the OBAMA ad story is totally wp:undue and two sentences are more than sufficient. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CAIR speech story POV/WP:OR???

message: This article is way too long with all too much emphasis on reactions, reactions to reactions, criticisms, reception etc.  Do we really need to detail every opinion ever offered about this book, or can we find the most notable 2-3?  Ill boldly summarize to kick off the edit cycle. Bonewah (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ive cut out what I feel is excessive or trivial sections of this article.  I think more pairing down is necessary, but id like to wait for other editors to analyze and respond to this first round.  I tried to focuse mainly on who was commenting and tried to ignore what 'side' the comments fall, and so removed both 'pro' and 'con' paragraphs.  Obviously, if anyone feels that i have introduced NPOV problems, feel free to revert and discuss here.  Bonewah (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article way too long. 

message: Hi all,
I notice that someone has added a quote from David Rothkopf's blog that attacks Stephen Walt for responding to the bin Laden endorsement.  I am confused as to why a blog is allowed as a source for such a personal attack.  I am also curious as to why such a personal attack is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, it doesn't seem at all noteworthy as it only tangentially addresses the topic at hand.  I also add that the individual who added this material is insisting on a large quoteblock of text for this personal attack (which makes the personal attack more prominent in the article) while also insisting that Walt's response to the bin Laden endorsement (which given he is the author of the book bin Laden is endorsing should be more noteworth) not be given a quoteblock (I was reverted when I tried to equalize the use of quoteblocks for some reason.)  Here is the passage in question that an editor is insisted be included in this article (and is sourced to a blog, albeit one hosted on FP):
:David Rothkopf, Walt's colleague at Foreign Policy, attacked Walt's response to the bin Laden endorsement saying: "Walt's response gets really good when he then goes so far as to suggest that Osama's embrace of his book only proves his point that the Israel lobby ... is used as a justification by terrorists.  Blind to the irony all his book did was weave precisely the kind of fabric of partial truths and old biases that are used to dress up the hatreds of demagogues everywhere, Walt actually has the chutzpah to try use the news that the most evil man in the world is reading his work as a soap box from which to once again sell his argument (and books)." [[[David Rothkopf|Rothkopf, David]].  "Walt, Mearsheimer, and why Osama Bin Laden is reading The Israel Lobby." Foreign Policy.  16 September 2009.  17 September 2009.] 
Thoughts?  I will take this up on Monday on the RS noticeboard as I think it is a pretty clear case of inappropriate personal attacks sourced to a blog and it is also not worthy of an encyclopedia.
--John Bahrain (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the blog attack should be deleted.  It does not add anything encyclopedic. Mhockey (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: how can Rotkopf call bin Laden "most evil man" ? Is he pro-Hitler ? very encyclopedic!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.151.90 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with David Rothkopf's blog-based attack on Stephen Walt 

message: Not to mention that the one single paragraph that constitutes as the "praise" section is pretty much criticism as well. The way this article is written as of now is completely biast and ridiculous. And why is there a specific section dedicated to "Endorsement by Osama Bin Laden"? I think it´s safe to say the only thing objective about this article is the summary of the book-which, what this article is supposed to be about, is in itself only one paragraph. It seems to me that this article is in serious need of revision/editing for the current state it´s in is absolutely unacceptable. Does anyone else agree with me? 17:01 February 12, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.255.80 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's less than half of the article, and in fact amounts to just over half of the Reception section which is logical since just over half of the reception for the book has been criticism (my personal estimate, but I'm fairly sure it's true). If you believe that the entire Reception section gets undue weight, then you might have a point, and I encourage you to expand the other parts of the article that don't deal with the reception. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are two-thirds of this article criticism?? 

message: I rv-ed this edit and ScriptusSecudus incorrectly reverted it back. I'm afraid that the claim that "David Duke endorsed this book because of how similar it is to his own views and stances, and highly recommends it to everyone" is either an WP:OR violation (and arguably a smear as well, but I'm not going to argue that here). Duke may claim that the book is similar to his views, but the sentence as currently phrased suggests that this is true when in fact it may or may not be true. To endorse Duke's view of the book as true is POV pushing and/or OR. I am not going to revert again because I'm not going to get into an edit war, but a responsible editor should step in and correct this. I am not arguing that the Duke reference should be deleted, but simply that the wording needs to change to be NPOV and avoid OR issues. Arjuna (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke claim by ScriptusSecundus 

message: The opinion of Alex Safian is currently presented in the article. Currently no evidence has been provided that he is a significant view that has been published in RS on this topic. His opinion should be removed from the article until such time as evidence is provided that he is a notable opinion on the topic of this article that has been published in RS.
Copious mainstream media column inches have been devoted to this topic, as well as broad scholarly debate by significant academics. WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.". Given the amount of coverage that this topic has received by RS if Safian's opinion has not even been published by RS there can be no justification for including it. Dlv999 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But that to one side, I've just reverted a highly probable sock who had restored the content in  edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Safian Phd (physics) 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "cbc-2004":
From Osama bin Laden: 
From September 11 attacks: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy]] 

message: To quote the relevant policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
I would argue that David Duke is a fringe source whose opinion is not significant on matters of foreign policy or international politics. Do any other Wikipedia articles regarding aspects of American foreign policy refer to Duke's opinion as a significant viewpoint? I think not. His inclusion here seems like a crude effort to tar by association.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptified (talk • contribs)  08:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is David Duke's opinion relevant or significant 

message: Zunes never "took issue" with Massad's assertions. Read Zunes' piece in Mother Jones and you will see that he is simply quoting Massad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.150.186 (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zunes/Massad 

message: This issue has been repeatedly raised before. This is another case of article manipulation by few passionate editors, like we witnessed in the Hurricane Sandy article. It is not difficult to realize that this article is heavily biased against the book. Criticism on the book makes up a majority of this article (5,399 out of 9,486 words). This is in stark contrast with the off-Wikipedia reception of this book. 
Due to its comprehensiveness and a fresh look at the tabooed subject in the U.S. politics, this book earned praise from The New York Times, The Guardian, Foreign Affairs (the most respected international affairs magazine), the London Review of Books, the New York Review of Books, and the list goes on. Yet, the article treats the book with overwhelmingly negative sentiment. 
This issue must be corrected.
-- chulk90/discuss/contributions 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Critique section is a JOKE, it seems to list every single human that hates this book to create the impression that the book was poorly reviewed there are WEIGHT issues also.  Hedging this nonsense would be an idea. It is 100% evident (and it should not be) that who ever wrote this section is an open detractor and editing to dismiss the work. Clearly against policy. As the user above states (5,399 out of 9,486 words). The section is so detailed it list everyone, by section, who has issue with the book. NOT SO for the positive praise. Strange. The book got such a good review it is odd to think so many people hated it.--Inayity (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a consensus to remove the reviews by Marvin Kalb and Ruth Wisse? Neither of these people are experts on U.S. foreign policy, nor are they even peripherally involved in the relevant debates. Shii (tock) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Bias & Heavy Anti-Book Sentiment in the Article 

message: This articles main content occupies 584 words (excluding the lead) which is 277 words. The Praise is 699 words. The Mix reception and reply is 1700, plain hated it = 727. So we should probably rename the article AlL Opinions of the book, because from Benny to Chomsky I do not think anyone got left out. Per Wikipedia WP:SIZE and a whole host of other concerns like BEING CONCISE, Tel Aviv, we have a problem. Yes I understand it is a controversial book, but then do we include everything? Then a criteria is needed because in terms of someone actually reading this string on nonsense, you must be a die hard enthusiast of this topic. Many editors have already made this observation I am making it in specific terms to highlight a problem. discuss soln to this issue not a run-around or " I dont get the point." as the point is clear .--Inayity (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Balance in Clear Number terms 

message: Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace, wrote an extensive critique of the book, while also stating firmly that "The ideas Walt and Mearsheimer present are not comfortable and, in my view, sometimes not accurate. But they are not personally anti-Semitic, nor are they motivated by animosity toward Israel." Plitnick details his view that Walt and Mearsheimer seriously overstate "The Lobby's" role in policymaking, although their influence in Congress is considerable. He also challenges the view that Israel was a prime motivator in the invasion of Iraq, saying "...it was clear that Iraq was no threat to Israel. There was simply no reason for Israel to risk alienating a large segment of the American people in order to push for this war and, in fact, they did not. It was an American misadventure, and the Israeli involvement was by American request, not on their own impetus." Plitnick sees US Mideast policy as consistent with US policy in other places and based on an analysis with which both he and Walt and Mearsheimer would disagree, but saying "The Lobby" is responsible is overstating the matter 
:How many words is this for Mr. Plintnick, the way I see it, if someone else, more notable already conveyed this sentiment why is he here? Because everything placed on Wikipedia needs a justification. Who is he, why is it important. 189 words, Why bother with a reference just put the rest of his review in the article.--Inayity (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mitchell Plitnick]], no wiki page but had all of this to say 

message: Given the article edit restrictions, is there any chance of getting more info about the points addressed by any given critic's refutation and arguments?  It doesn't have to be word-for-word but it would be helpful to know something substantial.  For example: "Professor X attacked the book on the grounds that the authors used the wrong study from 1976 and misquoted Y."
I would also appreciate seeing why the selected individuals are credible authorities on this issue. For the CIA director and the Secretary of State, that's obvious.  But I'm not sure why/how a review in the Denver Post or an author addressing Stanford would constitute authorities on the subject whose opinions should matter to most readers here.  This is not an argument to remove any views, only a request to explain their usefulness.
Unfortunately, too many of the points in the criticism section are oversimplified down to generic outrage: accusations of scurrilous lies and "you don't know X/anything about X".  That doesn't inform me of what fallacies the book might employ, where its numbers may be wrong, what bad studies on which it may rely, or really disprove anything.  It only proves that people have very strong opinions and I could guess that much from the subject.
135.23.43.68 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I think that is pretty extremely in the undue weight category to include and intend to remove it. A review by a non-expert in an audio tape isnt something we would typically include in an article on a scholarly book. The Duke bit is a. about the initial essay, and b. is contained entirely in one line of a newspaper piece. The Bin Laden piece has about the same level of coverage, with a paper covering a speech in which he recommended a number of books to Americans to read. I dont really see how either belongs in an article covering the book. nableezy - 02:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: removing. nableezy - 19:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  bin laden/duke "review"