Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy/Archive 1

message: :The following text by 151.204.254.197 (talk • contribs) was moved from the article to the talk page by Caesura (talk • contribs).
AS WRITTEN, THIS PAGE MUST BE MARKED AS NON-NEUTRAL
this article, in case people do not follow current events, is, to say the least, controversial.
this wiki clearly endorses the author's conclusions in a supposedly neutral description.  there are problematic factual claims, notably the inability for the article to find publication in the united states -- the authors list no peer-referreed journals from which their paper was rejected, and it was published on the harvard university web site. —This unsigned comment was added by 151.204.254.197 (talk • contribs) .
MARKED AS NON-NEUTRAL? RUBBISH!
It is quite clear that views from all sides including those with mixed views have been given fair exposure. Whoever is keeping watch on this wiki is doing a fine job. Keep it up. --218.208.215.56 09:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Why are David Duke's views on this paper notable? As far as I'm aware, he's a fringe white supremacist, not a foreign policy or political expert. Why don't we ask the timecube guy what he thinks about it, too? Deuterium 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that trying to remove David Duke's criticism is problematic -- see the previous debate on the AIPAC page.  Instead of trying to remove the guilt by association reference, it may be better to add more information to this page -- as per my two suggestions below.  --70.48.240.217 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the first sentence of the David Duke section to reflect the fact that Duke's commentary merits a separate section not because David Duke's commentary on the paper in and of itself is not particularly notable, but because his commentary received a lot of attention in the media and has played a significant part in the public debate over the paper. Coffee Warrior 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "but because his commentary received a lot of attention in the media and has played a significant part in the public debate over the paper" -- is that so? I've seen him mentioned before by publications in connection with this peice, but mostly in the same way he's being mentioned here: to create guilt by association. The New York Sun or whatever would mention him in the same breath as Walt or Mearsheimer, just for effect, but that's usually the extent of it. I still think that even his simple inclusion in the article is somewhat suspicious, and that Duke actually being given his own subheading is just ridiculous. This is a prominence that is simply out of proportion with his prominence in the scope of this issue, and it's only result is and has been to guilt by association. --Clngre 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke 

message: I think it would be helpful to put together a list of the recent reputable news articles/opinion pieces that support and oppose this paper along with the name of the publication, the location of publication (i.e. US, UK, etc.) and author (and author's primary affilliations).  I would even denote which attack articles which contain accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of the authors.  I can't help noticing that the large majority of the individuals engaging in the most severe attacks on the original study's authors in this debate are actually denoted in the paper as being associated with the lobby -- that is what such a list can demonstrate or not.  Such a neutral fact-based meta-analysis is what Wikipedia does best and would help people draw their own conclusions.  
(I do not feel it is useful to denote which authors are Jewish, since that is a question that may come up and be used to attack even the existence of such a meta-analysis, because that would be encouraging prejudice based on religious affiliation.)  --70.48.240.217 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: List of Annotated Supporting/Criticizing Articles

message: (The following is the piece that User:Jayjg above refers to as original research.  I have placed it here so that it can be built upon and de-"ugly"-ified.)
Many critics have contended that the article contains numerous factual errors.  What follows is an attempt to list those claimed factual errors, the source of that claim and whether that error can be substantiated or disproved:
* "In fact, the whole paper is full of errors, large and small. A matter as simple as Israel's current population is incorrectly stated at 6,276,883. The number is precise but inaccurate. Israel's population recently reached eight million, a fact that was reported extensively in the press, and could have been verified with very little effort." - Ilana Freedman, "A dangerously wrong study on the Israel lobby", March 24 2006.
: According to the CIA World Fact Book, the current population of Israel is 6,276,883 as claimed by Mearsheimer and Walt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.228.208 (talk • contribs) 
:This is OR, without a doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A classic example of original research.  He is attempting to rebut an article about the paper using his own research.  What's more, I don't think the article he's attempting to rebut is even referenced in the article. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Why is it OR?  The rebutting is actually drawn from a newspaper.  I guess I didn't quote it enough.  Would it be OR if I didn't rebut it but just collected the factual errors?  Thanks for any help.  --70.48.69.93 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article rebuts this?  Exactly who is the person who "rebuts" this; are they notable in some way? And why would one quote Ilana Freedman to begin with? Jayjg (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Israel is the only recipient of US aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent.'
To my knowledge, U.S. aid to Israel is earmarked for use on defence, specifically through American defence contractors. Can someone at the very least provide a non-biased source for this? Joffeloff 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed Factual Errors

message: Perhaps Noam Chomsky's comment on the paper is of some interest. It is found at http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm. Basically, Chomsky disagrees with the authors' analysis and conclusion, but commend them for "taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.190.192 (talk • contribs) 
: A reference to Chomsky has now been added to the Criticism section.  It can't easily be placed in the Mixed Reviews section, because Chomsky didn't offer much praise, other than for the authors' courage. 204.210.35.48 08:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Chomsky comment should be moved to "Mixed Reviews". As I read Chomsky's review, he is not disputing the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby. Rather he is pointing out the lobby alone does not have enough explanatory force to account for US policies. PJ 07:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you justify your proposal merely on the basis that Chomsky is not disputing the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby?  Can you cite an example of ANY critic of M&W who disputes the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby? Chomsky said he didn't find the thesis of the paper very convincing, and that sounds more negative than mixed. Precis 09:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky's comment 

message: The version after I tried to make it a balanced reflection of the actual editorial (I have bolded the main balancing clause):
:A Haaretz editorial said that the paper expressed "an anti-Israeli feeling" and that it "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them."  Although it goes on to say that "the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome." The editorial concluded that "the professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."[16]
What you converted it to a simple and unhestitant accusation of anti-Semitism without explicit comment/explanation:
:A Haaretz editorial said that the paper expressed "an anti-Israeli feeling" and that it "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them", but concludes that "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."A warning from America, Haaretz Editorial, March 23, 2006.  Accessed March 27, 2006.
Can yuo please clarify your actions User:Jayjg?  Do you feel that your description of the editorial is more accurate / balanced?  I am going to re-insert my balancing addition in the mean-time.  --70.51.228.208 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is more accurate because the rest of the quote does not pertain to the article itself, but is rather a general political analysis. Pecher Talk 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The summary of Ha'aretz's position was done by someone else, not me. The person who did it is certainly not pro-AIPAC. I just combined the two. The information you included was overly lengthy, and was a political analysis, not about the paper itself. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this quote completely about the article: ""the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome." -- it mentions the "article" explicitly and talks about how the authors could be misinterpreting Israeli actions as being in conflict with America's.  I counter that both sentences are directly relevant to the article and it in general captures the overal spirit of the editorial -- I hope you take a moment to read it.  I am not making this up.  --70.51.228.208 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, this is political analysis by the authors of the editorial, not an analysis of the paper itself. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Should I interpret the opposition and reverting of any change I attempt made to this article as a sign that I am not allowed to edit or contribute to this article?  I am puzzled.  I do not view my edits as malicious nor POV.  --70.51.228.208 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of your edits have stayed, and I'm sure you're editing in good faith; however, editing is a collaborative process, and others disagree with your edits, in part because some of them are obvious violations of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Unbalancing of Ha'aretz Editorial

message: User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg just removed the studying claiming "considering that this "study" if you can call it that never referenced the Meashimer- walt and the reliability of its source is in question, this shouldn't be here"
:Hmm... Okay.  The actual study clearly mentions the Measheimer and Walt paper -- such as question "Question #6 What is the likely long-term impact of the Mearsheimer-Walt report?" from .  The quality of the study is directly relevant to the quality of the source -- the institute is somewhat new and above someone does try to address this.  How about we add that it is produced by the relative new research institute?  This hedges our position and lets us start work on an article about this research institute.  What do you think?  In the meantime, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and put it back in.  --70.48.69.93 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, US Newswire is just a newswire service to which anyone willing to pay for a subscription can use to distribute press releases.  In my other career I've used these services for product release PR notices.  I think the study is valuable but the fact you bring up above doesn't convey as much notability as you make it out to be.  --70.48.69.93 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Quartet's call for the Israelis to withdrawal from ill-gotten territories and allow the Palestinian leadership to flourish is a great improvement over the AIPAC dictates of violence and ethnic cleansing via "separation fence."
I am once again removing the study.  Please read WP:RS before you even consider adding more references.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Moshe: is your definition of a reliable source one that endorses your world view?  Those that do not endorse your world view do not qualify?  Let's put together an article on IRmep together (so that it reflects everyone's point of view) and then get a third opinion since I think that we are both partisan and agreement may not be possible.  --70.48.69.93 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely IRmep is at least as credible as David Duke? —Ashley Y 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not using David Duke as a source, we are simply saying he supported the paper's findings.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Duke is included not due to his credibility, but due to his notability. Pecher Talk 07:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] Removal of Study

message: I have moved David Duke beneath the other praise: he's not normally considered a serious source, rather, he's only mentioned here because so many of the paper's critics mention him. As Pecher and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg point out, he's here because of his notability, not his credibility. The credible sources should be at the top. Indeed I think he's only notable in this context because of his use by critics in a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. —Ashley Y 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the chronological sort to the praise section.  Duke's "praise" came before Levy's, regardless of his credibility; chronology does not imply credibility.  When attributing and asserting controversial facts, we do not discriminate based on the credibility of the claimant, but on the actual citations used to represent the assertions of the claimant, which in this case appear to be mainstream, reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unnecessary to have it first -- it really does appear as a reductio ad Hilterum -- although I feel that it should stay because he is notable.  I'm going to move it back down to where it was -- please do not move it back.  --64.230.127.239 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The fact that David Duke gets a separate section is a clue. —Ashley Y 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that articles should not be written chronologically because you personally disagree with the content?  If so, and if my change is reverted, I will add the NPOV tag. —Viriditas | Talk 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not written chronologically: it is sorted by issue: "Praise", "Mixed reviews", "Criticism". David Duke is a separate issue, since he is there not because he is a credible source, but because he is controversial. And accordingly he gets his own section. If there were two such sources worthy of their own section, you'd have trouble sorting it all chronologically if there were intervening sources. —Ashley Y 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Honesltly, I have a hard time understanding why his views are included at all -- or at least given any prominence whatsoever. Within the scope of this issue he is pretty negligible (the fact that he's mentioned by others in their criticism or has become the subject of some bickering doesn't mean much in itself) and I think this article should reflect that. The only purpose this seems to serve is to, yes, create guilt by association. That's the net result of his inclusion. I know Wikipedia isn't in the business of crafting specific impressions that an article will give off, but it is its business to be responsible and not misrepresent an issue. I just really can't understand why his views are deemed so worthy of inclusion. It just seems to distorts the entire issue. --Clngre 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole's "guilt by association" viewpoint contrasts with Dershowitz's viewpoint that the working paper is "David Duke with footnotes".  Rather than promote one side or the other, Wikipedia could simply add a sentence in the Praise section:  "For comments of David Duke, see David Duke"  and then transfer the David Duke section to the page David Duke. 204.210.35.48 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David Duke prominence

message: As it is now, this article is completely wrongly named. When one looks for an article about a paper, then one should at least get a summary of the main points in the article. Not so here. Here we get a "summary" which is shorter that the average news-article which only make a passing mention of the paper.
What we do get is every critisism of the paper that has been made, the more disreputeble the source (=David Duke etc) the better.
The article as it is now should be moved to something called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"-Controversy (or something like that). Then we could start afresh here, making a summary of the article. Regards, Huldra 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more sensible idea would be to simply add information about the paper to the beginning of this article. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have followed your suggestion and started to add inf. (a summary) of the paper in this article. Much more is needed, but just now I have done for now. Regards, Huldra 05:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: all I have added (under "Summary") is a, well, summary of the inf. in the downloadable version of the paper. I have not added citations (as to which page(es) is/are summarized); if other editors think that this is needed please don´t remove all the text; insert "citation needed" instead. Thanks. Huldra 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW Huldra, not every criticism is included in this article.  I think the article actually is strangely decently balanced for such a controversial topic.  Although I am with User:Jaygj that this article should include a better summary of the paper -- yours is a good start, although I am sure it will be throughly refined/rewritten in the next few days, like everything in this article.  --64.230.121.230 04:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page-move? 

message: CIA official Michael Scheuer: Does Israel conduct covert action in America? You bet it does
:For years – even decades – U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and – for Israel – worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. 
:Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of. 
Michael Scheuer  served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the future of America". 
:This is the opinion of one man not the CIA, your basically trying to imply that his word is unbiased by adding other irrelevent information about how long he has been working for the organization.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scheuer's virulently anti-Israel.  He's widely considered a quack. -- FRCP11 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Scheuer article is off topic.  That said, while he may not be "a strong supporter Israel", he isn't a quack and he isn't specifically anti-Israel.  --64.230.120.229 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA official agrees with Walt-Mearsheimer Study 

message: If someone here would include my very specific critique of the Walt/Mearsheimer claims about Israel and the Iraq war. (I will not add it myself.) -Martin Kramer
: Such an addition to the Criticism section could be counterbalanced with the addition of Juan Cole's Salon article Breaking the silence to the Praise section,                            and Michelle Goldberg's Salon article  Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? to the Mixed Reviews section.204.210.35.48 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Juan Cole's analysis is published in a reputable source (Salon).  Tony Judt has a great piece in the NYTimes today as well.  Martin Kramer's piece is a self-published piece on his personal website.  --64.230.120.229 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but Martin Kramer is apparently notable enough to have an article here. Since it's an opinion piece, notability of the author is probably more relevant. I recommend mentioning Kramer's piece (criticism) as well as both Salon pieces (on praise, one mixed). —Ashley Y 19:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Salon.com is an online tabloid; it hardly qualifies as a reputable source per WP:RS. Pecher Talk 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher and me like to do the standard partisanship battle here, but its getting old.  I acknowledge that Juan Cole and Martin Kramer are opposing partisans -- pro-Arab vs pro-Israel.  Salon.com itself isn't disreputable as claimed by User:Pecher -- he should support that with references.  Martin Kramer's continued self-promotion in Wikipedia continues to bother me, he should let others decide when his work is notable, but what can I do about it -- see: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia?.  But either way, the New York Times editorial by Tony Judt is clearly notable and presents a fairly nuanced argument which attempts to explain the varying interpretations of the paper.  --64.230.120.229 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I  really doubt the obove passage was actually written by Martin Kramer, I also doubt that Kramer's website would be on geocities so I think we can assume it doesn't qualify as self-promotion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the content for Kramer's website is hosted on Geocities (check the links on this page: http://www.martinkramer.org/pages/899528/index.htm) and the anon who keeps claiming to be Kramer did confirm that he has control of the martinkramer.org website via modifying its contents.  Read Kramer's talk page -- what you are claiming above is not in dispute.  --64.230.120.229 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: They're opinion pieces, not sources, so notability is more important. Indeed we include David Duke for the same reason. —Ashley Y 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Kramer would be delighted... 

message: This section ends as follows:
They also make heavy criticism of efforts they describe as being by the lobby against academic freedom. They specifically point to the efforts of Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer to collect dossiers on suspect academics through the website Campus Watch. Daniel Pipes later wrote to the London Review of Books denying that his activities were party of any Israeli Lobby.
Comments:
(1)  The last sentence does not serve as a description of the paper's content.
It does, however, serve to correct an error about Martin Kramer
(in the penultimate sentence) that Wikipedia should not even be propagating.  
See . 
(2) The first sentence could be made more precise as follows:
They also heavily criticize the Lobby's "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses".   204.210.35.48 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Kramer regularly "criticizes" Middle East professors who are are opposed to him ideologically -- and since Kramer is pro-Israel his targets then to be pro-Arab.  Thus while you can technically claim an error in specifics, the general claim that Kramer "criticizes" or "smears" (depending on your point of view) pro-Arab Middle East academics is true.  Here's the support: While Martin Kramer is not officially part of Campus Watch he did endorse it (see your link above).  Kramer belongs to Daniel Pipes's think tank, the Middle East Forum, which is the parent organization of Campus Watch.  Kramer also wrote the book "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America" which is a "critical look" at the whole school of Middle East studies in the US.  It generally claims that much of the field rests upon the theories of noted Palestinian Edward Said and that this focus "enshrined an acceptable hierarchy of political commitments, with Palestine at the top, followed by the Arab nation and the Islamic world.  They [Palestinians, Arabs and the Islamic world] were the long-suffering victims of Western racism, American imperialism and Israeli Zionism..."  Kramer argues for change in academia away from the current state.  Also Kramer has at least a dozen "critical" essays of various Middle East academics -- his critics have referred to these efforts as "smears" on more than couple occasions: . --64.230.120.229 23:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Comments: (1) Martin Kramer's delusions about his relationship to Campus Watch are not worth even mentioning on Wikipedia. Its almost sad to watch him and Pipes attempt to disown their own organization. The Middle East Forum IS Campus Watch. But it is reasonable that the information should not be in the description of the paper's content. (2) The quote should not be presented in such a way as to strip it of all context to create a POV impression. Or else there should be a new section descibing the details of what the paper is saying and who it is specifically critical of with regard to colleges. 64.12.117.12 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  content of the paper 

message: I've added links to the letters pages of three LRB issues. But please note the message from the LRB editors half-way down 28.8, where they note that in general they deliberately don't publish letters of simple praise, even though they received a lot in this instance.
They also mention that M&W will be responding in the next issue, so "heads up" whatever your POV. —Ashley Y 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precis 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRB letters, M & W Reply 

message: Criticism of the paper has itself been called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in The Australian: "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views...Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interest." [40]
This is funny--those who claim the Lobby stifles debate are themselves trying to stifle criticism of the M&W paper with charges of moral blackmail? By the way, this Australian reference should not be passed off as a separate piece, as it is a reprinting of the Financial Times editorial that is already referenced in the Praise section. 204.210.35.48 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the reference to be FT.  To be honest, I think your claim that "those who claim the Lobby stifles debate are themselves trying to stifle criticism of the M&W paper" isn't that correct.  I find that very emotionally laden charges of "anti-Semitism" in response to the paper stiffles debate -- it is to easy to view this type of response as just a form of ad hominem.  But that debate around the issues is a good thing and many have engaged in this type of response.  It is true that we haven't separated out the emotionally laden and generalizing criticisms from the more substance based ones -- which could be viewed as a disservice to the more serious critics or WP:OR.  What's your thoughts?  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being honest :)  You misunderstood me.  I was pointing out the humor in the fact that the passage was incorrectly phrased, thus sabotaging itself with an unintended meaning.  That's the reason for my question mark.  What you said above is obviously what was intended.
204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  responses to criticism section 

message: Washtington Post: "It's Not Anti-Semitic" by Richard Cohen -- a response to Eliot Cohen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401396.html
:I feel this one is clearly notable.
Molly Ivins: Pro-Israel 'Nutjobs' on the Attack
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20708
:Molly Ivins is very notable -- see her article: NRP, 60 Minutes, etc....  The article itself is strident but that is also the case with Melanie Phillips's article.  The current source on this article isn't great at the moment but it is actually a syndicated column from the Creators group.  It is likely to be published in a number of sources in the next few days.
--LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the WP one. I agree that Ivins should go in if Melanie Phillips is in, but haven't added it. —Ashley Y 03:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molly Ivins' syndicated column just appeared on CNN see: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/ivins.israelilobby/.  It is featured on thier main political webpage: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ as of the time I wrote this comment.  Each news organization has the ability to turn down a syndicated column but since it is being accepted by mainstream organizations it is fair to include it in this article.  I was incorrect earlier when I said it was strident -- its more down to earth than I initially thought because of the article title WorkingForChange has chosen.   --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Notable Articles

message: I've restored the full-version description of their letter to the LRB which presents point-by-point their arguements against the paper. The previous versions of the quote try to ignore the entire letter and only focus on the accusation made in the first paragraph. It is not acceptable to reduce a piece of criticism to an accusation. The reasoning for making the accusation needs to be presented as much or than the pure accusation needs to be given. I'm open to reworking the paragraph if people don't consider that it accurately reflects the case the authors make or if other content needs to be included. Herf and Markovits went to the trouble of making all those points in response and they should not be swept under the rug to get a cheap attack quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.127.0.51 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for at least putting your explanation here this time before changing the quote. If you continue removing critical quotes that you think are unfair, soon you'll be removing quotes from Eliot Cohen and others.  The "accusation" you refer to is one of the chief reasons for the intense controversy.  The way to defend is to counter in the Praise section, and this has been done quite a bit already.  See also the section "More Notable Articles" on this page. We don't want to start a precedent where someone alters the Praise section by removing countercharges of "stifling debate" and intimidation.  204.210.35.48 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original coverage of their letter stripped out all its content and reduced it to a shrill one-note response that removed all the substance that carefully went into the letter to the LRB by Herf and Markovits. If anything, I went out of my way to greatly elaborate their real concerns and criticisms of the article. I have not touched the quotes from Eliot Cohen and "others" and have no intention to. There is no "defend" in this. The purpose of the criticism section should be to accurately reflect the contents of the criticism. If you want the one-note response back in, as I said previously go ahead. But please do not remove all of the other content because that tends to look like someone wants the accusation of anti-semitism but is unconfortab le with how Herf and Markovits come to that conclusion.64.12.117.12 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Hitchens, Herf and Markovits obviously think that the M&W paper overstates Jewish power.  That's clear from the quote. It is touching that you are desirous of elaborating on the concerns of Herf and Markovits, but what you are effectively doing is poisoning the well and diffusing the criticism, burying it in a jumble of words.  You have misstated the purpose of the Criticism section.  Its purpose is not to accurately reflect the contents, but rather to give a representative quote or two and to allow the readers interested in knowing more to follow the link.  If we tried to explain how Dershowitz came to his conclusions, our description of his contribution would be way too long.  (By the way, since you oppose shrill one-note responses, why don't you want to similarly explain to readers how Eliot Cohen came to his conclusions?  Why just pick on H&M?) 204.210.35.48 01:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herf and Markovits 

message: I have removed some the quotes taken directly from the paper and added an interwiki to wikiquote. Whenever there are that many direct quotes it is appropriate to move them to wikiquote.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edits to restore those sections. The purpose of those sections was to describe the actual contents of the paper rather than have a POV discussion of the paper with no context at all. In certain cases the quotes became excessive in the name of neutrality. To then use the excessive nature of the quotes as a justification for their removal is not acceptable. Please in future discuss radical changes to the page first before making them. The effect of your changes is to hide most of the content relivant to what is in paper in favor of discussion of people talking about the paper. 64.12.117.12 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is not a radical change.  Quotations are usually only used if they are well known, and even then there should not be near as many as was on this page.  And its not like I deleted them, I moved them to wikiquote, just like I am sopposed to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the paper and as such it should contain a fairly decent summary of the paper's contents.  For the moment this summary consists of quotes from the paper.  It is honestly not an optimal solution -- these quotes should eventually be converted into a well worded summary that is easier to understand.  Moving these quotes to a WikiQuote page before such a summary is created is inappropriate because of the temporary purpose these quotes are currently fulfilling.  Although copying some of the quotes from various commentators to their WikiQuote pages would be appropriate if you really have a need to be doing the WikiQuote thing.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already created the wikiquote article.  You say that the quotes a just a stop-gap measure but if that is the case why have they not been summarized by now?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't originally add the quotes but they do serve a real purpose here to summarize the contents of the paper.  I think they are fairly concise and it would be controversial to rewrite the summary while still conveying the precision that these quotes offer.  I don't think we should lower the informational content of the paper just because WikiQuote exists.  How do others feel about this?  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People often argue that the quotes help to convey the message of the article's subject, however is is clear that lengthy quotes are not sopposed to stay in wikipedia articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a "lengthy quote" but rather a series of short quotes.  I would welcome the opinion of others on this matter.  If you want to try summarizing it go for it.  I would suggest copying the quotes to this talk page while your at it to ensure that the important aspects are captured appropriately in the new summary.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiquote 

message: The second sentence is admittedly nonsense, but 
not everyone would say the same about the first, since "Lobby"
looks more shadowy than "lobby", and the M&W fans would
love to deflect some of the conspiracy criticism, while the
M&W detractors want to play up the conspiracy aspect.
If, as I suspect, the capital L was inserted with M&W's blessing, then
this whole argument is truly nonsensical.
On the other hand, if the capital L were imposed on M&W
against their wishes, there might be something to discuss.
The word "not" in the first sentence suggests that the capital L was 
inserted without the acquiescence of M&W, and that's simply
unsupported by the Cole and Guardian references.  Hence to put
the passage back in at this point would serve to mislead. 
Please keep it out unless there is new information.
204.210.35.48 11:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a distraction and neither the authors or the LRB have made any comments about it -- thus we only have third parties commenting on it.  The central "controversy" about it is a tempest in a teapot anyhow: because while one can possibly imagine darker inferences from the capitalized term "Lobby" than the lowercase "lobby" that is all superfluous because the authors spent the time to define it explicitly for the readers of their paper.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I turned it into a parenthetical clause. But also this is the first ref to Cole's paper, so if anyone does take it out, they should move the citation details. —Ashley Y 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vague parenthetical remarks don't belong in an encyclopedia.  What is this mysterious question we are referring to?  Are we asking if LRB had permission from M&W?  Are we asking why the capitalization occurs in the KSG working paper?  Are we asking why LRB chose to capitalize in the first place?  The reader can only guess, and will get no help from either the Cole or Guardian references.  If you revert, I suggest at least using the Guardian reference (Beaumont), as it has more information about the capitalization than Cole.  Also please put a note here why you don't find LLG's argument above compelling (tempest in a teapot). By the way, I thought the "own blog" compromise was brilliant--but the present effort is, shall we say, not quite up to that standard. 204.210.35.48 08:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of "Cole nonsense" 

message: From User talk:LuckyLittleGrasshopper who took issue with my edits re: Cole
:Hi Armon, I have to comment on this addition you have put twice into the "Israel Lobby" paper with regards to cole:
:"Cole frequently attacks 'Likudniks' in the Bush administration, and has accused them of  dual loyalties. "
:The way you keep adding it to the article makes me think that to you this phrase is very damning.  In essence it isn't probably as damning as you think.  Charging all Jews outside of Israel with dual loyalty is obviously racist, imflammator and unfair, but that does not prevent specific individuals of having dual loyalties and making a restricted charge of dual loyalty is not anti-Semitic in and of itself if it can be shown to have basis in fact and not motivated by racial prejudices.  It may be because it involves Jews that it is so emotionally charged for you.  Try this example: it is clearly racist to say that all Blacks are crack users but just because this gross generalization is inaccurate, inflamatory and racist doesn't mean that any specific claim that an individual, who is black, is using crack must be incorrect or motivated by racism -- Whitney Houston for one really does appear to be a crack user and it is not racist to say so.  Just because the racist generalization is obviously false does not necessarily mean that applying a specific categorization to a specific individual(s) is false.
:I am not saying that Cole is clearly right nor am I saying you can't disagree with Cole but rather that just repeating Cole's restricted claim without showing why it is false is fairly meaningless in terms of trying to make a case that Cole is disreputable, anti-Semitic, or otherwise -- at least if you approach things logically rather than emotionally.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your own POV. We don't say that the L really was capitalised by his publisher, only that Cole makes that claim. Cole may accuse Likudniks in the Bush administration of dual loyalty, just as he calls AIPAC an agent of a foreign power (both quite fairly in my POV), but this is hardly relevant and suggests an attempt to smear him with the notion that all American Jews have dual loyalty, which is quite something else altogether. Finally, your removal of Cole's central complaint against Dershowitz is bizarre and unhelpful. —Ashley Y 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course it's my POV, I've given him my opinion on this article's content. What's pertinent here, however, is not whether we state that Cole's is an anti-Semite (I haven't advocated that) but whether we should be suppressing relevant information in order to inhibit the reader from coming to their own conclusion on a controversial subject. I object to Cole's (and yours) POV presented in such a way as to misrepresent reality. A) The "L" business is typical Cole conspiracy theory which was just an aside in his Salon article, and not notable to anyone other than his fan club. It simply does not warrant inclusion in this article unless the authors of the working paper themselves have taken issue with it for some reason. B) The quote I provided from the same article is actually the central thesis/complaint Cole had of the Dershowitz piece. I've actually read both, and what you are attempting to present are Cole's self-serving misrepresentations of Dershowitz (he wrote at great length in the article that criticism of Israeli policy is NOT in itself, Anti-Semitic) as a "fact". This is simply not true, and easily verifiable as such. Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Armon, it almost seems as if Cole if using "Likudniks" to refer to any Jews that support Israel's actions, which I think is kinda a ridiculous statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Likud's been in power until recently, so Israeli policy on the territories has followed the Likud platform at least until Sharon's disengagement plan. Do you have an example of Cole calling someone "Likudnik" when they were in fact closer to the Israeli Labour party ideologically? In any case, I don't think it's much relevant to this article. —Ashley Y 06:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your basically asking me to prove a negative.  Anyways who they would possibly vote for if they were in Israel is irrelevant.  Cole is basically suggesting that any Jewish American that supports Israeli policy has Dual loyalty.  This statement boarders on outright paranoia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Israeli policy" Cole speaks of is anything other than a return to "its 1949 borders, which are its only legal ones". I'm not up on internal Israeli politics, but I kind of doubt that would have much political traction there. This why I consider it pretty obvious that "Likud" is code for "Israel" period. The "fascist" policies he objects to occured under Labor govs as well. Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the blog entry in question (which again, I think is irrelevant to this article). Which statement? —Ashley Y 08:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, no, for "Likud" read "Likud". In answer to all of your questions, I refer you to the quote in this section of his article. —Ashley Y 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow -a rumour from Antiwar.com that Rice characterized a Feith position as "Israeli". I guess that'll have to do when you lack actual evidence but, I admit, it's still better than anything Cole managed to dredge up. Brings up another question for you to avoid though -so if that report is true, how does the "fact" that Feith is getting the boot make Cole's (or M&W's) case? Armon 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acually, it was published in Jim Lobe's syndicated Inter Press Service column which is reprinted by AntiWar.com and many other news sources and websites (here is a google search for other mentions: .)  More importantly, Lobe's article and Rice's explicit Feith quote was referenced by the Mearsheimer & Walt paper that this article is all about.  To characterize this as a "rumor" from the unreliable AntiWar.com in simply incorrect.  --70.48.70.121 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cole on "Dual Loyalties" 

message: The new lower case version might cause some confusion, because it is sometimes used to refer to AIPAC alone.  Also, since the capitalized version occurs in many of the quotes, some confusion could result from the newly introduced inconsistency.  These may not be real serious objections, but I thought I'd bring them up to see what others think. 204.210.35.48 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an asinine side-issue and we should capitalize "Lobby" just as it appears in the published paper. Armon 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lobby compromise 

message: I know it's frustrating that the M&W proponents get two sections (the other is Praise)
while the opponents get only one (Criticism).  But that's the current state of affairs, and criticism of Cole, which would be clearly out of place in the Praise section, is equally out of place in this section.  Try the Cole page. 204.210.35.48 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think you've hit the nail on the head. Unless we're going to keep adding "responses to responses to criticism" ad infinitum granting the M&W proponents twice the space is a) not a true reflection of opinion on the controversy, and b) a clear case of POV creep. We should simply remove that section and let the pundits make their best case, pro or con, in the appropriate section. Armon 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still the same pundits, though, so you'll still have the same number "pro", "anti" and "mixed" regardless of how you arrange them. —Ashley Y 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article structure is unwieldly.  It would be good to have a summary that preceeds the expert summaries that describes in brief the response.  Currently the criticism is sort of buried in middle/bottom of the article.  --70.48.70.121 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poisoning the "response to criticism" section 

message: Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby' Philip Weiss, The Nation, April 27, 2006
It says a lot about the why and the how.  It mentions more about the Atlantic rejection.  I've already added one quote from Walt to his WikiQuote page.
--70.48.70.121 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mearsheimer interview and context

message: According to the Paul Findley page, PF seems like a pretty respected guy. The Council he cofounded took out a full page ad in the NYT , containing some praise for M&W. Would anyone object to the addition of Paul Findley to the Praise section?  Or is that guilt by association? :) 204.210.35.48 06:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Paul Findley article illustrates an inherant flaw with wikipedia.  Often somebody like Paul Findley is presented as mainstream because of one or two willful POV pushing editors.  In reality, Paul Findley is about as far away from mainstream as you can get.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is necessary to mention Paul Findley in this article at this moment but I would encourage you to cover adaquately what he does on his page -- and on the CNI page.  --70.48.70.121 13:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hypothetical question on findley 

message: Instead of trying to write a coherent and fair account of the paper,
the editors here are engaged in a p*ssing contest; the two sides do nothing but try to
outdo each other in finding experts supporting their biases.  I'm embarrassed to be part of this whole endeavor.  By the way, I just added Freedman and Morris to the Criticism section. :) 204.210.35.48 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What should we do?    I guess the problem is that initially, especially early on, the coverage of the paper focused mostly on other people charging the authors with anti-Semitism or their support that David Duke offered, see .  I guess we are at a stage of accomdiation rather than just assimulation in the language of Jean Piaget.  There are WP:NOR guidelines that have to be followed.  Also this is a current event and thus it is hard to describe the "tragectory of history" when one has no perspective or clue as to how it ends.  In a way we are just providing without commentary a summary of the debate between intellectuals -- which is fine by me.  --70.48.70.121 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that Morris agrees with some points and disagrees with others is precisely what he predicts people will do - unrightfully so, in the beginning of his essay - "some of this is correct, and I realize as I write this sentence that it will henceforth be trotted out by the Mearsheimers and Walts of the world, as by their Arab admirers, while they omit the previous sentence and all that now follows." --Israelish 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Benny agrees with some facts but admittedly he disagrees with the inferences on which they are based.  Your revision, on the other hand, had quotes that were repetitive in content. I've replaced it with an alternative passage. Precis 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contest 

message: One imbalance here, and it is implicit, is the singling out of the "Israel lobby" for documentation in wikipedia.  It is clear that there are also an "oil lobby", an "Arab lobby", a "Christian lobby", a "Hispanic lobby", etc....
It would be interesting to document how these lobbies affect public discourse in the US as a whole -- their standard techniques, etc.  For this purpose, it may also be useful to create a meta-article called "Lobbying in the U.S." (or something similar) which brings all of these lobbies together so that people can understand that while in isolation the "Israel lobby" can be made to look "suspicious" with its "attempts" to influence government, but put in proper context it behaves very similarly to other foreign-entity, religious or ethnically-based lobbies.  --64.230.126.192 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no "Oil Lobby" or "Arab Lobby" articles?

message: As more and more start weighing in on the paper
(the latest is Fisk in the Independent), the Praise
and Criticisms sections get more and more onerous.
It might make sense to send all quotes in these sections
to Wikiquotes, keeping only the names of the authors
and the links to their articles.  A summary of the
main disputes should be written before removing the quotes.
204.210.35.48 07:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing quotes 

message: Isn't Tony Judt a notable US academic? 204.210.35.48 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born in London. Precis 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  john fund quote on cole 

message: Yep, you can see the response at the link. --Jersey Devil 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response from Writers in London Review of Books

message: :"Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force as "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government"
:"The nasty campaign waged against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has itself provided an excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the lobby and its supporters. The wide attention their argument has received shows that, in this case, those efforts have not entirely succeeded. Despite its many flaws, their essay has performed a very useful service in forcing into the open a subject that has for too long remained taboo."
From Michael Massing: The Storm over the Israel Lobby, New York Review of Books, June 8, 2006.   --64.230.127.33 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Massing in NYRB

message: I think it counts as a development, doesn't it? I think we should mention it. —Ashley Y 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we remove Melanie Phillips as well? —Ashley Y 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, my reasoning would be that she has not commented on the paper anywhere else besides her blog, we wouldn't be able to mention her at all, but since cole has commented other places his response could still stand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that removing this detail leads to balance problems. Al 06:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about, there still many critics from both sides present, and its not even like we are removing any reference to Cole, just a loaded petition from his blog meant to mischarcterize his oppenents. It doesn't affect the balance one bit.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith. Once again I am not "silencing" Juan Cole, his paragraph still contains more info than most other critics. His "petition" is not particulary relavent to the article and it only comes from his blog.  The only place Melanie Philips commented on the paper is her blog, so if we want to include anything about her we have no choice but to use a blog as a source, to include something from Juan Cole we can just as easily use other more reputable sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That article seems to indicate that the petition isn't very noteworthy or important.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cole's petition 

message: Administrators, please alert to : 
User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg  is persistently censoring/vandalizing this site and AIPAC site,
exercising POV bias in stripping out references to pertinent, factual books by former Congressman Paul Findley. Dogru144 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent vandalism by [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] 

message: We went over this a long time ago. IRmep does not meet the criteria for reputability and reliability as per WP:RS.  It is obviously excessively bias boarderling propaganda. I am once again removing it from the external links.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We went over it, but not all of us agreed with you.  Unfortunately, you do seem to have the habit of removing items that you happen to disagree with, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. As a result, this article is now biased. Al 16:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is flawed, even if it were true that IRmep was a completly neutral website which it isn't, it is not being directly used as a reference for any above claim, the only thing that results from its removal is one less link at the bottom of the page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfect neutrality is not a requirement for external links.  Likewise, it is not necessary for that site to be directly referenced in the article.  You appear to be using criteria of your own creation.  And, yes, I did notice your snippy little remark before you remvoed it, but I'm going to take that removal as an apology. Al 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criteria of my own creation huh? Sorry buddy but the guidelines are clear that we are not to include such bias websites anywhere in the article except in very limited situations.  Please read WP:RS before accusing me of making up rules.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRmep in external links 

message: I added a "See Also" link to the Wik article on The Council for the National Interest , a Washington lobbying group taking a position similar to the paper's, and which regards the pro-Israel lobby's influence as excessive. Maybe other See Also links might involve articles on Lobbying in general. --Roger Skye 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: The Massing article, currently reference #25, has just been inserted as an external link.  Why the duplication? Precis 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplication in external links 

message: Critics of the research paper are using this page to continue their smear-campaign against the two scholars.  Right now the Critics page is drawing attenation away from the paper and its content.  Citing sources that says "entitled to their stupidity", "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews", "dishonest so-called intellectuals".  In addition, introducing Ku Klux Klan as source is way out of Wikipedia's line of policy.  This is not a battle ground for Jewish fanatics and White Supremacist to battle out their opinions.
The Praise and Criticism section should be combined into one paragraph saying: the paper received mixed responses both condeming and praising their research".
Administrator: I urge you to seriously apply Wikipedia's policy to this topic. Akolsrud 16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which policies do you think are being violated, and how?  I must say, so far you haven't shown a very good understanding of policy, which is entirely understandable, given that you are a new editor, but I think you need to get quite specific. It's hard to understand how removing relevant, encyclopedic and cited sources, and replacing them with a brief paragraph filled with unsourced weasel words is in line with policy. Also, which "jewish fanatics" are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Akolsrud wrote:  In addition, introducing Ku Klux Klan as source is way out of Wikipedia's line of policy.  Once again this shows a misunderstanding of policy (let alone facts).  David Duke's support of M&W was highly publicized in the press, and Wikipedia reported on coverage of this controversy by reliable sources. That's perfectly within policy. Precis 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrator, I add my request for neutrality oversight.  I do not concur with the emotional and charged phrases (such as the offensive "jewish fanatics" [sic]) included above.  However, it is apparent that there is significant disagreement and there is an ungentlemanly edit war going on, in this site. Some continuing oversight by administrators is definitely warranted. Dogru144 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section needs a "neutral" overhaul. 

message: This edit is a vast improvement over your previous edits, from the point of view of POV, but  it is unsatisfactory for other reasons.  In the Peretz entry, the English is so convoluted that it's not even clear what is being said.  It may be advisable to avoid paraphrasing and use direct quotations.  The Nir entry is misplaced--it belongs in section 3.1, not 2.1. Precis 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the Nir entry is misplaced, because it has now been added to the list of points M&W were making in their letter to the LRB. Perhaps put it at the very bottom or top of 3.1 Precis 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ori nir and martin peretz entries