Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive 1

message: I just moved this from the article to here:
:"The Washington Times qualifies John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's usage of the term as the "recycling of old canards", inviting "authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows,"Recycling anti-Semitism by Suzanne Fields, The Washington Times, 20 April, 2006 whereas"
The problem is that Mearsheimer and Walt do not use the term "Jewish lobby" in their paper, the author of the Washington Times article paraphrases their use of "Israel Lobby" as "Jewish lobby" and then attacks it -- it appears to be a use of the "straw man" rhetorical technique.  Read the WT article and you'll see what I mean.  Because of this, it isn't accurate to criticize Mearsheimer and Walt in this article for "using" the term "Jewish lobby", they didn't.  --Deodar 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt 

message: Bhouston, regardless of any other consideration, please don't keep trying to switch the focus to only one country and one issue. The term is used by many groups all over the world to refer to many things. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with you that my concern is only one aspect of the word's usage, I never claimed otherwise -- but that does not in anyway mean that coverage of this usage must not be even mentioned in this article.  If nothing else, there should be a dab header.  --Deodar 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself told me the other day that you are intimately familiar with NPOV guidlines going so far as to have made significant contributions to that core Wikipedia principal yourself.  --Deodar 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to the first; no to the latter, and it's a question of accuracy. You're determined to single out one use because of your politics. Mention it, yes, but don't single it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Americocentrism

message: SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus sapiens have been removing references that the term "Jewish lobby" may be made in reference to the Israel lobby in the United States.  It is true that the term is a favorite of racists as the current state of the article reflects but this is not its only usage as my previous comments on this page clearly show.  The term is used by mainstream American, British and Israeli publications in non-prejudical fashion to reference the Israel lobby in the United States.  That said, there is a deeper reason why the removal of this viewpoint by SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus sapiens is a bad idea.  People that hear in vague references about a supposed "Jewish lobby" from whatever sources informal or not may end up here.  They may also hear that talking about the Jewish lobby is taboo even though it exists.  This page, if it only condemns any mention of it as anti-Semitism but there is some hints in the way it is condemned to suggest there is more too it, it reduces the effectiveness of condemning things as anti-Semitic.  Refusing to deal with the topic here, i.e. not satisfying people's curiosity, may cause people to seek information elsewhere, information which may not, especially if it is on racists sites, present a honest picture.    It is much better to satisfy people's curiosity with the truth, aim to correct people that get distorted understandings of the "Jewish lobby" in addition to pointing out what are distortions and why some groups promote them.  The truth it is a lot more boring and a lot more grounding than fantasies they can find elsewhere.  Honestly, leaving curiosity unsatisfied (especially when done as clumsily as the article currently does) is more dangerous than giving them the boring truth.  --Deodar 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "used predominantly by the far right, [4] Islamists, [4] and some elements on the left. [2]". I am not a native speaker but I understand that "predominantly" is not the same as "exclusively". Is it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response -- I appreciated it. The article's lead sentence is "Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, and international finance." The third sentence says "The expression is regarded as an anti-Semitic slur." The second sentence from my reading just specifies where this expression is used, the qualifier "predominantly" is not in reference to how it is used. --Deodar 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is rather straightforward. "predominantly" say who it's used by; it say nothing about what it means. Humus sapiens seems to be confirming that the term is not used exclusively in prejudicial fashion, but Dasondas says below that it is a slur regardless of intent. I can see those as consistent, but if true, shouldn't the article indicate that somewhere -- that the term is sometimes used by non-anti-semites who fail to realize its anti-semitic semantics? However, I think Deodar's citations indicate that it isn't quite true -- sometimes Jewish organizations use it in a non-anti-semitic way. But -- when they do so, they are referring to Jewish interests, not Israeli interests, as when they speak of a "Jewish lobby in Brussels", which has nothing to do with Israel or the U.S. pro-Israel lobby. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, please don't leave messages about specific articles on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How's this: "The term Dirty Jew is used predominantly by antisemites, unless the Jew in question is indeed dirty." ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad start, HS. But I'd tweak it a bit and add "or said Jew  is responsible for starting all wars". IronDuke 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term Dirty Jewish Person is more appropriate, but I'll defer to the consensus.Dasondas 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments seem to reflect a circular argument. The issue is whether there are any non-anti-semitic uses of "Jewish lobby", so any explicitly anti-semitic term isn't analogous. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So, when reporting on the fact that the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations thinks that a Jewish lobby in Brussels should be run by European Jews, not American Jews, that is a derogatory usage? What alternative phraseology would you suggest? Or, perhaps your opinion is just that, and isn't encyclopedic. -- 71.102.136.107 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive 

message: I created a dab page and listed two meanings so far.  I have removed non-conspiratorial relevant links from this page since it is now clearly focused on one specific usage.  I have also added to the article Israel lobby in the United States a "for X, see Y" template to this page.  Jayjg said there are other meanings that the dab page is probably the easiest way to go.  What do you think?  --Deodar 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also rewritten the lead of the Israel lobby in the United States to better cover why the term "Jewish lobby" is not preferred.  I have added explicitly, by copying from this article, that it is an anti-Semitic slur and what it is used to allege.  This seems like a good resolution.  --Deodar 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also created an Israel lobby (disambiguation) page that is tied to the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page.  While it may seem complex, I think this is an amazing solution that now also deals with Jayjg's earlier expressed concerns about the ambiguity of the term "Israel lobby" itself.  --Deodar 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stab at decent resolution?  Dab page 

message: Why must he continue to do such things?Kiyosaki 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you come up with anything better? What kind of argument is "blue link"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SlimVirgin removing blue links and reliable sources 

message: Someone who knows more about this topic should expand the history section.  I’ve been trying to find the origin of the conspiracy theory without much luck.  Racist people don’t seem to make this allegation against any other group, so I was wondering if the conspiracy theory is based on some point in history where Jewish people did control a disproportional high number of banks or media providers.  Thanks, --Arctic Gnome 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviusly you do "particularly care" enough to post here. Is there a problem when talented, creative and enterprising people (many of whom happened to be Jews) create a new industry and market? It seems that some non-talented, non-creative and non-enterprising people cannot see anything but Jewish plots. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of a Jewish conspiracy is silly, but whenever one minority group is largely overrepresented in something, it is of encyclopaedic value to find out why.  It’s just like the question of why men are disproportionably overrepresented in government; no one thinks that there is an organized male conspiracy, but it’s still something that’s worth studying academically.  If Jewish people do own a lot of the banking and film industries relative to their population, the article should say why.  For example, are there just a couple of extremely wealthy Jews pulling up the average?  Does the ownership date back many generations to a time when ownership laws were beneficial to the Jewish community?  There surely must be some explanation.  --Arctic Gnome 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: It seems that, much like anti-globalization and antisemitism, a great deal of anti-Semitic feelings are related to anti-capitalism. Many of the people that have these beliefs are obviously socialistic and/or left-leaning in political orientation (which includes many Jews, by the way), asserting that some Jews use their "traditional business acumen" and "shrewdness" to "dominate" and/or "control" key industries, in the meanwhile eliminating all competitors; this is often in contrast to those on The Right that have anti-Semitic beliefs that are racial (Racial antisemitism) and/or religious (Anti-Judaism) in orientation. However, even Nazism (often associated with the Far Right) was technically called the 'National Socialist German Workers Party,' (the key words there being 'Socialist' and 'Workers,' both associated with anti-capitalism), and if you read around you'll find that many of the Nazi leaders expressed quite a bit of anti-capitalist sentiment in relation to Jews, especially in their more personal writings. Indeed, one of the first thing that the Nazis did when they came to power was to organize mass-boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses (especially dept. stores, newspapers, and various banks), which eventually decimated the German-Jewish community economically and caused many of them to emigrate within a few months or years. 
This is not only the case in modern times with the so-called "New antisemitism" (which is strongly associated with the more socialistic Left), but was also found in the past where many prominent Communists/socialists were anti-capitalist AND anti-Semitic at the same time. Stalin cracked down on Jews in the USSR post-WWII, citing that they [paraphrasing] "still have too much control in business and government."  This also includes many lower-tier Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc, along with Karl Marx in his essay On the Jewish Question. Many of these Communist/socialist Jews went so far as to entirely renounce Judaism (and all religion), and became radical anti-Semites (or Self-hating Jews, take your pick) in their own right -- for example, Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő of Hungary were both ethnic Jews and were anti-Semitic, along with many other Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc. 
Also, amongst non-Jews these days, it is commonly said that "the Jews own/run/control everything" (anti-capitalist & anti-Semitic) or that "Jews control the media" (the media is also a business, at base -- especially Hollywood), or that in certain industries non-Jews are no longer able to compete anymore because "Jews already own everything" or that "the Jews have entirely cornered certain markets" (competition is an important element in free-market capitalism; in fact, it is key to the whole system). The increasing numbers of mergers and acquisitions in recent times (as the world has become more globalized), especially when it comes to media companies, seems to back-up a few of these theories (see the Viacom table I've added below as only one example of how "mergers and acquisitions" have affected the marketplace; and remember this is only a single example). It is also well known that Jews have been highly successful in the banking/financial sectors and are VERY overrepresented in these fields (the "Shylock stereotype"), epitomized most by Wall Street (based in New York City), along with all of the banks that are headquartered there: it is well known that many of the top directors, boards, and CEOs of these banks and other major financial companies/corporations are of Jewish ethnic origin (see List of Jewish American businesspeople, though this is only a fraction), even if they no longer practice Judaism and despite the fact that they are only approx. 2.5% of the U.S. population. Thus, I think that Anti-capitalism and antisemitism would make a good article, as more than a few anti-capitalists often harbor anti-Semitic beliefs as well (both in the past and the present). Anyone have more ideas, opinions, or thoughts on this subject?  Would anyone like to start an article on this topic?  --172.128.120.24 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any logical connection between the two concepts? The existence of people who happen to believe both X and Y is not sufficient grounds for the creation of an article on that subject. Anti-capitalists are a very broad group of people, and no doubt include many anti-Semites as well as many Jews (Labor Zionism, the main political movement that led to the creation of the State of Israel, is anti-capitalist in nature). Of course there have been allegations of Jews "controlling" "international capitalism", but there have been just as many (if not more) claims of a "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy, or supposed Jewish control of "international communism". Jews may be overrepresented among bankers, but they are also overrepresented among communist thinkers and political leaders. Indeed, one key element of Nazi propaganda was the claim that communism is a Jewish conspiracy. Most of the anti-communist far right is antisemitic. Should we therefore have an article entitled Anti-communism and antisemitism? -- Nikodemos 04:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article Proposal -- [[Anti-capitalism and antisemitism]] 

message: This statement or versions of it have been added and remove from the article for a while:
:The term "Jewish lobby" is also used without prejudice to refer to an Israel lobby in mainstream newspapers in AmericaJewish Lobby Loses a Big One, Time Magazine, May. 29, 1978Essay Stirs Debate About Influence of a Jewish Lobby, New York Times, April 12, 2006, IsraelAmiram Barkat, An American Jewish lobby at the European Union, Haaretz and BritainRupert Cornwell: At last, a debate on America's support for Israel, The Independent 7 April 2006.
Is there a way to handle this so that a stable solution can be found that everyone agrees with?  Maybe the disambiguation line at the top of the article could be modified to suggest that the user may be looking for the "Israel lobby" entry directly -- the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) article is mostly a duplicate of the Israel lobby page anyhow.  What do ya'll think?  --64.230.127.30 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish lobby/Israel lobby back and forth 

message: I've put in the too few viewpoints tags. Further up the talk page is it asserted that "The term is used by many groups all over the world to refer to many things". So let's have them in the article. Catchpole 09:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I've moved the following sentence to Talk:
However, the term "Jewish lobby" is also used to refer to an Israel lobby in mainstream newspapers in AmericaJewish Lobby Loses a Big One, Time Magazine, May. 29, 1978Essay Stirs Debate About Influence of a Jewish Lobby, New York Times, April 12, 2006, IsraelAmiram Barkat, An American Jewish lobby at the European Union, Haaretz and BritainRupert Cornwell: At last, a debate on America's support for Israel, The Independent 7 April 2006.
The item violates a number of fundamental policies and guidelines. To begin with, it's original research; that is, 
:It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. 
The statement has clearly been put there to counter the sourced claim that the term's use is antisemitic, yet this counter-argument is sourced to no-one. 
Next, it also violates WP:NEO: 
:To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term... An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).
The sources used in this article must discuss the term "Jewish lobby", not merely use it. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catchpole, rather than continuing to violate policy, please respond here. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what you revert. The Haaretz article about the Jewish lobby is already linked to from this article. Catchpole 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it. The issue you mention has been fixed. Please respond to the point. Jayjg (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is the material you removed was not original research, and by removing it the article is even further away from meeting NPOV than it is at the moment. Catchpole 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it was OR. You introduced it to counter the argument that use of the term "Jewish lobby" is antisemitic. You made that extremely clear; you were even nice enough to use the word "However", to make your intent indisputable. None of the sources you brought actually discussed the term itself; you merely brought a bunch of sources which used the term, and in so doing attempted to prove that it could be used in an non antisemitic way. If you think the article is POV, you need to find sources which discuss the term. But I don't have to tell you this; you've made the exact same argument yourself. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What tosh. The lobby is discussed by Rosner here . Catchpole 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What tosh. Rosner, writing on his blog, uses the term "Jewish lobby" in inverted commas, and he doesn't actually discuss the term itself. This is an article about the term. Please re-read WP:NEO, you seem to have forgotten what you quoted from it less than a week ago. Also, please respond to the point that you were making up an argument to counter an argument about the term being antisemitic. Are you going to now claim that unless you can make up your own argument that the term is not antisemitic, that the article is therefore POV? Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NEO says avoid neologisms. Jewish lobby is not a neologism so I don't know why you are referring to this guideline. Rosner's article is about attacks on the Jewish lobby so I don't know why you are insisting on keeping any views that don't coincide with the AIPAC worldview out of the article. Catchpole 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a neologism? I can't find it in any standard dictionaries. When was it first used? As for the rest, please explain why you insist on using original research arguments to counter views that disagree with your own. By the way, Political Research Associates is quite different than AIPAC. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However" section moved to talk 

message: Catchpole has again inserted the following sentence:
The Economist has used the term American-Jewish lobby to refer to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.[http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8861497 Taming Leviathan, The Economist, March 15 2007
The article in question uses the term "American-Jewish lobby" in a headline, and then describes AIPAC as "the lobby" in the article. Exactly what it the point being made here? How is this relevant to this article? I must remind Catchpole that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what the point is supposed to be, the Economist article about AIPAC and not about the term "Jewish Lobby". <<-armon->> 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example that the expression can be used in a non-antisemitic way. See my edit above. I agree it is Catchpole's edit may be OR, but I also belive that examples like these should tell other editors that we should try to write the article in a way that covers this aspect of reality: That there are examples of neutral use of the concept. I think it should be a matter of honor to try to be as truthful as possible, and even though the OR-policy may inhibit presentation of the fact that Catchpole proposes, I think the article should not exclude the possibility. pertn 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The OR policy was not designed to be a tool to prevent POV articles being improved. Catchpole 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you found a reliable source that make the argument that you are trying to make, in accord with the original research policy? Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the Economist or the Haaretz? I haven't got time to play your games at the moment. Catchpole 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't the cites -or the time, please don't deface the article with the tags. <<-armon->> 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, per WP:NOR, you must find a source which makes your argument. You can't build one based on original research. Tags aren't forever, and per WP:NPOV dispute "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." As Armon says, if you don't have the time to find sources for the argument, or none exist, you can't keep defacing the article with these tags. We've been very, very patient. Jayjg (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economist 

message: This article should not go under the heading 'antisemitism.' The allegation of an inordinately influential pro Israel lobby is not antisemitic. 
71.179.117.2 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Scifiintel 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not antisemetic 

message: Bartletts article (quite good actually) is available online here:
http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/ 
I am not sure how to add it.pertn 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference hyperlink 

message: I recently wrote this message to Jpgordon after he reverted my edit which talked about a Jewish Lobby exerting too much influence in the U.S. (I referenced it with an IHR website), he told me to write it on the talk, so here it is:
Hi, you say we don't site "Holocaust denial websites", but IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust.  IHR says that any serious scholar wouldn't deny the Holocaust, but that they do try to historically review our standard view of the holocaust and present possible exaggerations of it.  Anyone who says the Holocaust couldn't be exaggerated at least somewhat in our modern view of history isn't being NPOV because there are two sides to every story.  In this case the sides are that the atrocities of the Holocaust are played down and were actually far worse, or the atrocities of the Holocaust have been exaggerated and were actually not as bad.  To not include either of these sides is to not be NPOV, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV, so I would ask that you consider reverting your edits on the Jewish lobby article.  There are two sides to that article, and what I have added helps to present both sides.  Thank you, Scifiintel 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to Jpgordon 

message: Big edit push today to characterize talking about a "Jewish lobby" as antisemitism.  Rolled back a few edits. If that argument is going to go anywhere, it needs more supporting citations from reliable sources. --John Nagle 06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some country-by-country analysis is in order.  The US certainly has a Jewish lobby; there's a minor one in the UK (see BICOM), but outside that, is there much activity? --John Nagle 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rolled back a major push to whitewash antisemitism. Pro-Israel does not necessarily means Jewish. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has two cites from Jewish sources talking about a Jewish lobby as a good thing, both from prominent Israeli newspapers.  So it can't be that pejorative. --John Nagle 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is not a place for OR. Ironically, elsewhere some editors insist that many Jews do not support Zionism and Israel. You can't have it both ways. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major POV push today. 

message: We had a quote farm of somewhat disorganized quotes, and I've put them under country sections.  We have US and UK sections now.  There are indications in  that a USSR section might be useful, but I'm not sure how to write that. --John Nagle 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently  has a problem with this.  But so far there's been nothing from him on the talk page about it. --John Nagle 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are the usual suspects upset about organizing the quote farm by country? That ought not to be much of an issue.  This is starting to look like a WP:OWN problem.  --John Nagle 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what "usual suspects" means, but count me in. This "organization" seems completely artificial. Why separate them by country of the source and not by gender? By your logic, Vijay Prasad belongs to India subsection. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the quotes refer to statements made about events in specific countries.  The Guardian quote is from an article about a minor scandal involving a British member of the European parliament.  The US quotes refer to statements specific to the United States.  Please don't revert blindly; try to improve the article.   --John Nagle 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see "statements made about events in specific countries", just the opposite. E.g. Aaronovich mentions internet stories with headlines such as, "What were 120 Israeli spies doing in America a few months before the 9/11 attacks?", etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country sections 

message: I suggest we remove op-eds as not reliable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RS

message: Numerous cited scholars and researchers have documented that "Jewish lobby" is a term used to promote or reinforce antisemitic stereotypes. Whether or not you believe that the term is always used this way, there can be no question it often, or at least sometimes, is. So the template needs to be there.
Nobody disputes that there are Jewish (as well as Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) advocacy groups that seek to influence policy through "lobbying." This is a perfectly legitimate political activity, regulated by a number of laws and rules. But the term "Jewish lobby" is - as has been documented - used to imply that Jewish organizations exercise an inordinate, inappropriate, and clandestine influence on US policy, even to the detriment of American interests. It is hard to find examples of the term being used in any other way in any of the literature. To illustrate: you'd be hard pressed to find the many Jewish philanthropic organizations listed as part of the "Jewish lobby," and whenever you find the term "lobby" used for other groups, (e.g., "Big Tobacco Lobby") it has a similar negative connotation.
So while one should acknowledge the existence of Jewish advocacy organizations, which the article does, it would be misleading to represent the notion that the term "Jewish lobby" is used as a neutral synonym for "Jewish advocacy organizations." It is of course a legitimate question how much influence Jewish organizations have, but that is covered in the article. In other words, this article - based on its title - is about that question: who raises it, why, what effect does it have, what are the various answers. --Leifern 11:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this many times before; people need to find sources discussing the term "Jewish lobby", not just using the term. Jayjg (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism and other POV edits 

message: I think that labelling the Jewish lobby as a mere conspiracy theory cannot be justified. Of course, there is also this aspect related to the subject, but the Wikipedia article shall present all facets of the issue.
The presence of Antisemitism template is an expression of recognizing the overwhelming importance of the conspiracy theory, so it must be removed. IMHO the inclusion into the Category:Antisemitism can remain in place.--Mazarin07 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, it is very interesting that Mr. JoshuaZ (sic!) protected in the first place the pro-conspiracy theory version...--Mazarin07 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:V and WP:NOR? Do you have any sources for any of your claims? For example, which reliable sources say that the term has "two meanings"? Which say that the second meaning is used "mainly by Jewish authors"? Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly used in two or more different ways in the article: For instance, this passage is explicitly linking the term to  to the Israel Lobby: "In their 2005 opinion piece in Ynetnews, Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer write: "No Jewish lobby has more political power than the 100,000-strong AIPAC organization. This power is one of Israel’s greatest global assets."" Would you argue that the meaning of JL in this sentence is the same as in the rest of the article, that it's a conspiratoric slur? I believe that you use the OR policy to avoid employing some common sense. Actually reading, and not just quoting, is not OR. pertn 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected from editing 

message: I've tried for a more neutral first paragraph, and have added a "controversy" section, while leaving the "antisemitism" box.  This needs a look by some neutral parties.  I'd appreciate comments from experienced editors who edit non-Israel related subjects.  Thanks. --John Nagle 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily, I'm a neutral party, and I've had a look at it. As usual, you've inserted your own biased original research, as outlined below. Who says there's a "controversy" at all? Only a couple of Wikipedia editors, who insist on arguing with what the reliable sources say. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this, "Luckily, I'm a neutral party," shows an impressing lack of judgement and perception of context. pertn 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph again 

message: Nagle, you have again reverted in the phrase "The existence of a Jewish lobby is denied in some circles." Of course this unsourced POV assumes that there is a "Jewish lobby", which "some circles deny"; I suppose like "some circles" deny the Holocaust, or that the earth is a sphere. In any event, please propose changes here first, rather than edit-warring in the usual POV. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate comments on this from editors who are not Israel-related-only article editors, but whom have a broader perspective on Wikipedia.  Thanks. --John Nagle 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, I'm not an "Israel-related-only article editor", and "have a broader perspective on Wikipedia." In particular I'm familiar with the WP:NOR policy. What is your source for the claims that "The existence of a Jewish lobby is denied in some circles."? Please quote them making that claim. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of "Jewish lobby denial", see  The myth of the `Jewish lobby'. What's so weird about Jewish lobby denial is that there are respectable Jewish sources that say there's a Jewish lobby : "Reference is often made to the "Jewish lobby" in an effort to describe Jewish political influence in the United States. This term is both vague and inadequate. While it is true that American Jews are sometimes represented by lobbyists, such direct efforts to influence policy-makers are but a small part of the lobby’s ability to shape policy."  Haaretz says that the Prime Minister of Israel (Olmert) said in 2006 that there's a Jewish lobby : "The prime minister hopes the Jewish lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians." That's clear enough. (Yes, Olmert is known to have a foot-in-mouth problem , but he is the Prime Minister).  Denial is just silly at this point. Yet at the moment, the article is written to deny the existence of a Jewish lobby. That's factually wrong and has to be fixed. --John Nagle 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it seems that some people believe it to exist, others don't.  Have you found a source yet that asserts the existence of "Jewish lobby denial"? That's that darn WP:NOR policy you keep running up against, rearing its ugly head yet again. Jayjg (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usual POVing 

message: We're probably going to have to go to dispute resolution to deal with the problem. --John Nagle 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain the exact reason, actionable within policy, for your insertion of the neutrality tag? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I just read through this whole talk page and the article remains messy and POV.  It seems absurd that even references to "Jewish lobbies" where Jews lobby together on issues like anti-Semitic discriminatory laws against Jews or whatever would NOT be covered in such an article. In fact, making it anti-Semitic to use the phrases makes people afraid to SUPPORT such lobbying, marginalizing and ostracizing Jews from larger society, certainly not the goal of those who try to narrow the definition.
Maybe [we can discuss other] uses of the phrase, not to mention the non-anti-Semitic uses mentioned above.  Also, then it would be necessary to get rid of the Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page.  I'm trying to focus on other subjects, but I wish SOMEONE would just go back in there and make this a NON-POV article.
Carol Moore 03:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol, some of your comment above violates either WP:NPA, WP:CIV, or both. I hope you would consider refactoring. IronDuke 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated. IronDuke 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually an issue.  One of the references describes complaints by Jewish groups in the European Union about US representatives of the Israel lobby moving in and trying to refocus their agenda on supporting Israel.  The Prasad article, "The Myth of the Jewish lobby", expresses unhappiness with Jewish US-based Indian expatriate groups trying to "deploy that power in the service of India, so that India may have something akin to the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship"".  There's some tension in the US between the more liberal American Jewish groups and AIPAC, but mostly AIPAC wins (as AIPAC's head lobbyist says, "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel.", and the losers write articles in Tikkun.  Complaining about the term "Jewish lobby" marginalizes Jewish organizations that aren't focused on supporting Israel.    --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What About NON-Israel Jewish Lobbying, Like Versus Anti-Semitism??

message: It took about 1/2 hour to find these most recent discussions ABOUT the term.  I'm sure a more thorough search could come up with lots more.
"In the Shadow of the Holocaust," Jewish Spectator  (Winter) 11-14; reprinted in expanded form as, "Memory and Meaning in the Shadow of the Holocaust," Emory Studies on the Holocaust  (1985) 114-22.
The second commandment is: “Get organized and stay organized.” The post-holocaust Jew must belong to and support a whole range of organizations. There is a Jewish lobby. Why shouldn’t there be! There is a gun lobby, an oil lobby, and an Arab lobby. This is America. Lobbying is a right and a political privilege. There are organizations devoted to anti-defamation, education, and support of the State of Israel. There ought to be, and Jews must be active in these organizations.
 U.S. Aid to Israel Put in Sharp Focus by Rupert Cornwell Published on Saturday, April 8, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Washington)
 Is there a "Jewish Lobby" in the United States? Of course there is, just as there are highly effective lobbies for gun ownership, farmers and for ridding Cuba of communism: How else is it that America persists in its spiteful and futile persecution of Fidel Castro's unlovely but unimportant regime? The answer is the critical Cuban-American vote in the electorally vital Florida.
Israel and the Left, Philip Green, April 17, 2003 (May 5, 2003 issue)
At the same time, it is not anti-Semitic to say, as Moran perhaps intended to say and as is often said on the left, that "the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstacles to a rational American Middle East policy." That statement is arguable, and hyperbolic, but at the same time perfectly reasonable in its broad outline--reasonable judgments are often arguable or hyperbolic. The main point is that there undeniably is a pro-Israel lobby in Washington composed in great part of the representatives of several major Jewish organizations, and if those organizations had their way American policy would always tilt unequivocally toward Israel: just as if the Irish political elite in Massachusetts had had their way policy would for many years have tilted toward Irish Republicanism; or would have tilted toward Mussolini in the 1930s if the major Italian-American organizations had had their way. As Michael Kinsley pointed out in Slate, one of the strongest claims ever made for the power of this lobby can be found on the website of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 
Do Zionists Run America? By Allen Ruff. A review of James Petras’s book The Power of Israel in the United States
What sets Petras’ work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms “Jewish lobby,” “Israel lobby” and “Zionist lobby” are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel’s racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction. (In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, he states that he is justified in using the term “Jewish lobby” since that is what the Israelis use when discussing political support in the United States — as if adopting the Zionist movement’s cynical appropriation of all things Jewish serves any progressive purpose.)   
 There is No “Israel Lobby” By Kim Petersen 04/26/06
 Since the “Israel Lobby” does not represent “Arab-Israeli” interests, and since it represents Jewish interests worldwide, the label “Jewish lobby” (there is no need to capitalize the “l”) would be much more accurate. Also, “Zionist lobby” would seem to be less accurate because the lobby’s goals are not limited to Zionism but include policies dedicated to the interests of certain Jewish “elites.” So long as it is not implied that all Jews (since modern Jews never formed a coherent ethnic or national group, but are peoples who have shared somewhat the same religion, how can one address them as a homogenous group? For instance, if a Ukrainian Jew renounces Judaism and declares atheism, then why should he be treated as Jew that he is no longer?) are included as lobby members, then there is no reason not to label the “Jewish lobby” for what it is. Most people would not, after all, object to the label “Catholic lobby” or “Arab lobby,” so why should the label “Jewish lobby” be controversial?
Regarding the labeling, Blum responds, “I used ‘Israel Lobby’ because that’s what the authors of the report I referred to used. And the purpose of the lobby is to help Israel, not Jews per se.”
 With all due respect to the incisive anti-imperialist Blum, he is remarkably off base when he says: “the purpose of the lobby is to help Israel.” Since, as stated, approximately one-fifth of “Israelis” are Arabs, and since the lobby has no intention of helping them whatsoever, the purpose as stated by Blum is, intentionally or not, fallacious. To be factually accurate, one should state that the intention is to help the “Jews of Israel” and not “Israel” per se. Blum, however, does see merit in changing the designation of the “Israel lobby.”
Carol Moore 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol, have you been reading the arguments above, and WP:NOR and WP:NEO? The first three quotations are discussing whether or not a Jewish lobby exists - they do not discuss the term "Jewish lobby" itself. This article is about the term Jewish lobby. If you want to write about the Israel lobby in the United States, there's a whole article on it for you to do so. In addition, the second and fourth source are not reliable, so could not be used in any event. The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice" - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dissident_Voice_%28third_nomination%29 for detail as to why this is so. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay is correct. Also, to clarify, we could only ever use these cites as examples of the term being used, we can't make that assertion that they are examples of "non-bigoted usage" because then we are drawing a non published conclusion which is clearly WP:OR. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Which cite are you talking about? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources About Non-Bigoted Uses of Term “Jewish Lobby”

message: John, I notice you keep adding the sentence The term "Israel lobby" is preferred by AIPAC, which refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". in various forms. From what I can see the AIPAC page doesn't mention the term "Jewish lobby", nor does it anywhere state that it prefers the term "Israel lobby" to "Jewish lobby". Please be mindful of the original research policy. If you can find a source that that discusses the term "Jewish lobby" in the context of AIPAC, that's fine, but so far I haven't seen one. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a good one.  "Taming Levithian", from The Economist, March 17, 2007. "These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby. This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears."  Even better, there's "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby", which is by AIPAC's former chief lobbyist, writing in the New Jersey Jewish News. (That's worth reading; it's a frank analysis of AIPAC's power by the man who wielded it.) That seems to clearly settle this issue.    --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither one of these sources supports the claim that 'AIPAC prefers the term 'Israel Lobby' to 'Jewish Lobby'. If that's all you have, you're right, it really does settle this issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In fact, John, neither source actually discusses the term "Jewish lobby". They are, again, both examples of the use of the term Jewish lobby. In addition, the edits you have made seem mostly about attempting to get as many references to AIPAC into the article as possible; thus you continually quote sentences from various articles which use the term (or similar ones) that refer to AIPAC, not to "Jewish lobby". It's also clear the the Bloomfield reference from which you've cherry picked sentences is actually talking about the "pro-Israel  lobby", as he terms it. Anyway, per WP:NEO, as has been explained many times, we need sources that discuss the term, not use it. Quoting WP:NEO: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. Please also review the comments of User:G-Dett, who usually disagrees with my statements and edits, has come out fully in support of my insistence that we abide by the WP:NOR and WP:NEO in this article in this comment here.Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIPAC sentence 

message: User:Jayjg writes towards end of : Talk:Jewish_lobby#Reliable_Sources_About_Non-Bigoted_Uses_of_Term_.E2.80.9CJewish_Lobby.E2.80.9D: The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice" - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dissident_Voice_(third_nomination) for detail as to why this is so.
Why was article deleted? No Sources. WP:ATT The only google news sources were 13 references to authors who write for it on one specific day. No report on google web searches. And based on lack of any sources a couple people claimed it wasn’t “notable enough.”
What reference on Jewish Lobby has an article that as a template saying This article does not cite any references or sources. - could it be Jewish Virtual Library??  So what proof is there that it is noteable enough? (Just to prove the point I just put a notability template on it.) Do we see a double standard here?? Should I call for deletion of the article to get someone to improve it??
And let’s not even start on the WP:POV of the source.  The existing (non-sourced) wiki article calls it: “The Jewish Virtual Library is an online encyclopedia published by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), notable for its strong pro-Israel views.”
There is not a significant difference in the number of references to Jewish Virtual Library on Google news and web compared to Dissident Voice, and I’m sure sufficient quality quotes about both topics could be found.
1/11/2008: Google news search
*1 ref article by the director of Jewish Virtual Library
*4 ref to articles by established writers for DissidentVoice
1/11/2008: Google web search
* 119,000 references to “Jewish Virtual Library”
* 57,000 references to “dissidentvoice.org” (since 204,000 were to “dissident voice” and some of those also will be the publication, the number doubtless is much higher)
Should I quickly put together a WELL SOURCED article on DissidentVoice.Org since Sourcing WAS the only real issue?  Why not??? How can I find the original article cause I know they keep deleted articles somewhere on wikipedia? Thanks.
Carol Moore 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol, you claim that "4 ref to articles by established writers for DissidentVoice" - but none of them actually use DissidentVoice as a reference, do they? In any event, DissidentVoice has been deleted by Wikipedia as a non-notable website; if you want that deletion reviewed, you can certainly take it to WP:DRV. Also, I'll change the Bard reference to the earlier quote from his book The Water's Edge and Beyond, since you object so strongly to the Jewish Virtual Library website. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was referring to when you wrote above: "The fifth source does discuss the term "Jewish lobby", but rather unfortunately comes from another unreliable source and non-notable website, "Dissident Voice".." Change noted and will check out maybe someday :-) Thanks for link to how to appeal to get article back.
Carol Moore 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:V - comparing Jewish Virtual Library and Dissident Voice

message: First and only introductory sentence: This article is about the relationship between Islam and antisemitism. The nature and extent of antisemitism in Islam is a hotly-debated issue in contemporary Middle East politics.
Section 1: Antisemitism in the context of Islam
First sentence: Scholars describe and analyze antisemitism within the context of Islam in different ways, depending partly on how they define antisemitism. For example:
Then it LISTS different views.  That is how THIS article should be structured. The "phrase" Jewish Lobby is just as controversial as the "concept" Islam and antisemtism (as this talk page has shown for a couple of years) and there is no substantive reason they should be treated differently.
Carol Moore 09:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the different views are cited -are they not? <<-armon->> (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, once bigger issues are resolved, the Islam and antisemitism article will need a more meaningful lead as well.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's "controversial" as you claim, because antisemites use the term, and then deny their own obvious antisemtisim. Not one of the antisemitic allegations is legitimate. Yahel Guhan 04:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Islam and antisemitism]] - a Good Model for This Page

message: User:Nagle, you keep inserting this original research into the article:
AIPAC's former head lobbyist, Michael Bloomfield, in his article "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby"
, provides an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda. On the relationship between U.S. Jewish organizations and AIPAC, he writes "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel."
The insertion is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
# As has been pointed out by a number of people, including User:G-Dett  and more recently User:Georgewilliamherbert , this article must bring sources that discuss the term, not use the term, per WP:NEO. The term "Jewish lobby" is not found in any encyclopedia or dictionary, and is therefore a neologism.
# The article you brought, in any event, does not use the term "Jewish lobby". The author, in fact, consistently uses the term "pro-Israel lobby". It is only the headline that uses the term Jewish lobby; as I'm sure you're aware, it is editors who write headlines, not article authors - in this case, the editor of a small ethnic community newspaper. Thus, even if it didn't violate WP:NEO, as it does, it still would not be appropriate.
# Your description of the article was itself entirely POV original research. According to whom was the article "an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda"? According only to User:Nagle. And please do not insert the quote again, leaving out this POV sentence - as outlined above, the source is in any event unacceptable, this point merely outlined how poorly you treated this unacceptable source.
It is apparent that you are simply doing a google search for +"Jewish lobby" +AIPAC, and then choosing whichever uses of the term best match your argument/speculation that the Jewish lobby... exists. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Carol, we've seen your mistaken understanding of the NPOV tutorial more than once. Rather than continually repeating this boilerplate comment, please respond to the specific issues raised above. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to tell me specifically who said what was mistaken about what, since so much was said here. Also, because so much said, I don't know which specific issues you want responded to. Carol Moore 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from Michael Bloomfield

message: OK. Now that we've dealt with the "neologism" issue, let's move on to the "original research" issue.  For reference, look at this version of the article, which has most of the items recently deleted as "original research". 
* The Economist writes of the "American-Jewish lobby": "These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby. This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears." ()
Now that's from The Economist, one of the more prestigious political journals in the world, and one with a good reputation for neutrality.  It's a direct quote; there's no original text at all other than a very brief introduction to the quote.  The article both uses the exact phrase "Jewish lobby" and is about the Jewish lobby. 
 deleted this quote  with the edit comment "(rm OR yet again, the cite has to be ABOUT the term)". He's echoing , who previously deleted the same quote..
* AIPAC's former head lobbyist, Michael Bloomfield, in his article "Myths and facts about the Jewish lobby"  (), provides an insider's view of the lobby's structure, influence, and agenda. On the relationship between U.S. Jewish organizations and AIPAC, he writes "Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel."
That's a quote from an article by AIPAC's former head lobbyist, writing about the Jewish lobby.  
So that's a direct quote from a major player in Washington.  One could argue over how much of the article should be included, of course. 
This was deleted by  as part of the same edit.
So that's what's being deleted as "original research".  Nothing there could possibly violate the sections of WP:OR quoted above. As for "neutral point of view" issues, arguably Bloomfield, the AIPAC lobbyist, isn't neutral, but I don't think that's what  is unhappy about.
The real issue here is the mislabeling, as "original research", quotes which some editors would prefer be forgotten.
--John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your incorrect claims regarding "the neologism issue" have been dealt with, in the section above. Also, I had already created sections to discuss these specific insertions, here and here. It's quite frustrating that you would simply ignore those sections, and repeat yourself down here - it appears that you are not even bothering to read the comments posted here before reverting. Suffice it to say that, for example, Bloomfield never even uses the term "Jewish lobby". Please click on the handy links provided to respond in the appropriate sections above. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Deja vu, Jayjg was already called on this when we first had this discussion (see The Economist section above). Catchpole (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, you and User:Nagle were called on this, and you still haven't come up with a convincing reply, other than to revert in material that violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aka, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carol Moore 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Original research" issue

message: I just went back to count the edits; if we count sides, there's at least 6RR in the last 24 hrs.
Though no individual appears to have committed a 4RR blockable breach, the combination of behavior on both sides constitutes an edit war.  The article is now full protected for 24 hours from now to attempt to slow down and defuse the edit war and encourage discussion here on the article talk page.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably good to link to the rule too. WP:Three-revert_rule.  Frankly I thought it was 3 reverts to the same specific entry NOT to the whole article! EEK!  One gets an idea in one's head and only a good wake up call, like above, gets it out! thanks! Carol Moore 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article full-protected for a day 

message: What I see is an opening statement that links the term Jewish Lobby with antisemitism then it follows with a number of people of questionable notability defining the term. This article should be merged with Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is "Jewish lobby" is not the same thing as "Israel lobby in the United States". Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Frankly, given the refusal to allow all different use of the term to be mentioned on this page, it would make sense to see if it gets a more NPOV rendering on that page where there are more interested parties who would insist on NPOV.  Otherwise, I would argue for the merits of keeping it as it's own article.  However, I'm sure 50 people would pop up to support the POV definition here and oppose a merge, so practically probably not possible. But feel free to propose it! Carol Moore 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how listing a long list of where and how it's used are encyclopedic, personally.  An encyclopedia entry is a summation of reliable information - analysis and reliably sourced commentary, science and so forth.  It's not replacing Google as a search engine for pointers to every usage of the term on the Web.  I still don't understand what Carol and John's reasoning is on why you think it's appropriate to include all those links.  What are you trying to inform or communicate that you feel you need those links to demonstrate?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak for Carol or John. My concern with this article is that, to a layman, Jewish Lobby likely means groups such as AIPAC. Hence this article, in it's current condition, looks WP:FRINGE. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "What are you trying to inform or communicate that you feel you need those links to demonstrate?" That there is a Jewish lobby, and that even the Jewish lobby now calls it the Jewish lobby. Take a look at Deodar's comment from last August, above, "Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive". He says it quite well. Thanks.   --John Nagle (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you haven't produced any actual evidence that "even the Jewish lobby now calls it the Jewish lobby". As pointed out multiple times, a Bloomfield doesn't even use the term "Jewish lobby". Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  In 's alternate universe, The Economist isn't a reliable source, a phrase that appeared in Time Magazine in 1978 is a neologism, The New Jersey Jewish News used an anti-Semitic phrase in a headline, and the editor of The Forward using the term "Jewish lobby" can be ignored.  This may be a WP:FRINGE problem, as noted above.  --John Nagle (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't strawman what Jay is saying. He said nothing of the sort. Instead, why don't you address, point by point, the specific problems with these insertions above, as pointed out by many different editors - and, in addition, find a cite for your opinions. So far you have conspicuously avoided actually addressing the objections raised, instead responding with vague and pejorative claims that often have nothing to do with the points made by those who oppose these policy-violating insertions. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the purpose of this article? 

message: Some of the cites used to support the lead sentence "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance." are questionable.
* "The Myth of the Jewish Lobby" begins with the line "The power and influence of major U.S. Jewish organizations owe a lot to the convergence of their views with the neo-conservative elements who dominate the ruling coalition in Washington.".  His point is that the Jewish community in the US mostly votes Democratic, while AJC/AIPAC were (as of 2003) closely aligned with the neocon wing of the Republican Party.  He's distinguishing between the interests of Jews (especially Indian expatriates in the US; this is from India's national magazine) and the AJC/AIPAC/neocon coalition. 
* "Message to the left: there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby".  David Aaronovitch definitely says that.  But he's just writing that as a primary source; he doesn't provide any backup for the statement.  It's a polemic, not reporting. This raises a reliable sources issue.
* "ZOG ate my brain", the cite to the New Internationalist, has no link and turns out to be mis-cited. (Fixed that.)  It's actually "ZOG ate my brains".  That story cites a use of the term "Jewish lobby" by anti-war protestors, with a footnote leading to a 1990 paper by the same author.. That paper is an analysis of most of the conspiracy theories of the time: the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, the LaRouche people, the JFK conspiracy, etc. (You get a "where are they now" feeling reading the thing.) Haven't found "Jewish Lobby" in there yet, but I'm still looking. --John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it: "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry and labor. (1978)"  It's in the section on the LaRoucheites, right after "The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolph Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. (1978)" We're way out in WP:FRINGE territory here. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry John. I don't understand what your point is here. Could you clarify? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble understanding this too. "The Myth of the Jewish lobby" says THE idea of the "Jewish lobby" is attractive because it draws upon at least a few hundred years of anti-Semitic worry about an international conspiracy operated by Jewish financiers to defraud the European and American working poor of their livelihood. The "Jew", without a country, but with a bank, had no loyalty to the nation, no solidarity with fellow citizens. The anti-Semitic document, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", is a good illustration of this idea. That's pretty straightfoward. As for David Aaronovitch and The Guardian, what exactly was it that suddenly turned them into unreliable sources? As for the third, who are you saying has a fringe opinion? Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites of "Jewish lobby" as an anti-Semitic term need to be improved

message: Which ever version ends up being the final one after dispute resolution, it should include a quote from this:
Walter John Raymond, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=1dtn0olA8PcC&dq=%22dictionary+of+politics%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=mWdU49sDHj&sig=jf98Xub08rUSP5KKMrMnEwGN6Wc
The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms], Richmond, VA: Brunswick Publishing Corporation, 1992, 243.
The whole quote (per the above) being:
:Jewish Lobby. A conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel. Among those organizations which are most actively involved in lobbying activities at federal, state, and local levels of political and governmental institutions are: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Community (AJC), which was once headed by Arthur Goldberg, the former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the B’nai B’rith which claims a membership of over half a million worldwide. The Jewish Lobby claims to speak for the six million Jews residing in the United States (with half of that number, or approximately three million, living in New York State and mid-Atlantic states – which exceeds the total number of Jews in the State of Israel), and it is known to be the most loyal and most generous donor to campaign expenses of public officials, regardless of nationality and religion. Political aspirants often find that Jewish constituencies are the first to embrace them and the last to abandon them, no matter how rough the going. See ARAB LOBBY, JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, SADIT-BEGIN SUMMIT.
Carol Moore 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding "The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms" Definition

message: This page gets harder to read.  I suggest we start by archiving everything before January 2008 when recent round began.  Then by end of month we'll probably be ready for a January archive.  I'll do it unless someone experienced wants to do it.  This is the nly notice. Carol Moore 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving This Talk Page

message: John, in your latest edit, on top of re-inserting original research sources that use the term, rather than discuss it, you also removed a reference from Geoffrey Brahm Levey & Philip Mendes. Jews and Australian Politics, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, who discuss the term. Can you explain why? Do you object to this source in some way? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I missed the insertion between Visontay and Vidal, because paragraphs had been moved around so much.  Sorry. --John Nagle (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ''Jews and Australian Politics'' reference 

message: This article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consequently I will unprotect the article. Thatcher 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-revert rule 

message: Questions, cc: Jewish Lobby Talk Page
This is my first mediation, read the relevant pages about but didn’t see clear answers.
*I of course will list several other issues if join on to it and assume those will have equal weight.
*Lobojo who has edited just twice and never been on talk is included. Five or six people who have made significant contributions, including on talk are not.  I will announce on the Jewish Lobby Talk page.
*I assume the mediation committee will read and be working with the context of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
*I assume any mediation would not necessarily over-ride the Arbitration Committee one revert and the talk page rule? or would that depend on what we all agreed to?
*Are the sock puppet issue and Jayjg canvassing email relevant here? or only if we list them as relevant?
Carol Moore 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby]] is Up