This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
This is just a normal cheap shot used by wiki on a regular basis. Someone should email Davis Duke and have him send $$ and a big kiss to AIPAC - then publish it ( where I don't know, .....
I removed this section. Didn't seem neccessary.
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)
Many critics of the article are saying it is riddled with factual errors. It may be useful to list all of the claimed factual errors and then do a bit of research to confirm or deny these claims on an individual basis. Again, such a neutral meta-analysis is what Wikipedia does best. -- 70.48.240.217 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(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:
This:
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)
Check congressional records - yah fat chance, you will be 80 when you emerge - money comes from taxpayers, then goes to Israel, then they spend it on US corporations, who send the money overseas ( China etc ) - guess who got screwed.
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)
Available from here: [2]
-- 70.48.240.217 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is known about IRmep is that: 1) Their ongoing surveys of Middle East Acadmics is respected enough to receive hearings in the Senate http://www.irmep.org/gaza.ram 2) Their survey shows what the broader community of Middle East experts from academia(rather than lobbies or "think tanks) think about the Israel Lobby study findings. 3) Their director is a respected researcher and author. (this comment was added by anonymous user User:70.108.159.63 on April 6 2006)
I'm restoring this study because the release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This means the study results are notable and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for newspapers.
Secondly, Moshe... said that the study wasn't about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper. If you read the study or the news release, you'll see that this is incorrect. Deuterium 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who as even looked at IRmep's website for more than a 30 seconds will see it is not even reputable enough for the guardian. It is clearly a propaganda website with a bad dress-up job designed to make it look official.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The version after I tried to make it a balanced reflection of the actual editorial (I have bolded the main balancing clause):
What you converted it to a simple and unhestitant accusation of anti-Semitism without explicit comment/explanation:
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)
Strange how Ha'aretz finally ends up agreeing with Walt et al.
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"
Also, the study's press release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This proves that the study results are notable and significant and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for mainstream newspapers. Deuterium 01:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is ridiculous that you suggest that IRmep is a reliable source. Here is a excerpt from their website describing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.-
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)
" Moshe: is your definition of a reliable source one that endorses your world view? " very good!
How about one that actually is reputable and reliable enough to trust their claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that she is a professor of "Professor of Yiddish Literature, and Professor of Comparative Literature" as per her page: [5] -- it appears to me that she is making a comment far outside of her domain of expertise. I do not think her opinion on the article is worth including if we want to have a high bar here. -- 64.230.127.239 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
David Duke is at least as credible as Dershowitz.
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)
CIA official Michael Scheuer: Does Israel conduct covert action in America? You bet it does
Michael Scheuer [8] 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". [9]
Scheuer must have noticed that more Iraelis are deported for spying than all other nationalities combined - what a bastard to mention it.
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
The following has been excised:
"After the article was completed, it was first approved for publication and then rejected by the Atlantic Monthly."
As far as I can tell, this misinformation is due to Antony Loewenstein [10] 204.210.35.48 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This newly added section, instead of describing the paper, consists almost entirely of quotes that function to defend the paper against charges of antisemitism. One could just as easily taken quotes from the paper that promote the opposing point of view (as numerous journalists have made clear). 204.210.35.48 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example to show that "The lobby" section is not neutral, but rather serves to whitewash the paper's provocations. The following three passages occur in propinquity in the working paper, in sequence:
(1) It is not meant to suggest that 'the lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.
(2) The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant
effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.
(3) Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them.
Passages (1) and (3) were chosen for Wikipedia, while the less friendly passage (2) was passed over.
Playing a similar game, one could create a section of quotes called "What the Lobby does", suggesting a sinister, controlling cabal whose core is American Jews:
(a) "The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. "
(b) "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach."
(c) "Were it not for the Lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today."
(d) "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress."
(e) "The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections."
(f) "Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."
(g) "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel." 204.210.35.48 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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 [11].
(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)
The following should be excised:
According to Juan Cole, it was the publisher, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby". [2]
Reason: Mearsheimer and Walt themselves capitalize "Lobby" in the KSG working paper [13] 204.210.35.48 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Juan Cole, it was the London Review of Books, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby".[4] The reasons for capitalization of "Lobby" in the Kennedy School of Government paper have as yet not been explained. I hope your new entry is not reverted for a while, because it will stimulate intriguing speculation. How do you suppose the capitalization was snuck into the KSG paper under the authors' noses? Say, d'ya think it was ...AIPAC? 204.210.35.48 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here is a classic example of poisoning the well. This description of CAMERA was inserted on April 19.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a pro-Israel media watchdog group which in the past has been very critical of National Public Radio and Steven Spielberg, published a detailed study of the paper,....
Here is a second example, also inserted on April 19.
British journalist and Frontpage Magazine contributor Melanie Phillips called the paper a ...
Note: She is a columnist for the Daily Mail, but it serves to create more bias by identifying her as a contributor to FrontPage.
The passage about Melanie Phillips ends as follows:
Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stand "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the London Review of Books". Phillips had nothing to say about the rejection of the paper by the Atlantic Monthly.
The last sentence above is the Wikipedia editor's own rebuttal of Melanie Phillips's criticism. It promotes the point of view that the Atlantic Monthly rejected the working paper because of the Lobby, rather than for other reasons such as poor scholarship.
If this kind of bowdlerization of the Criticism section is to be allowed, then it should be permissible as well to append snide comments rebutting quotes in the Praise section, such as "Professor X had nothing to say about Hamas's call for the destruction of Israel." Or one could poison the well: "Tony Judt, who is on record as having called for the effective elimination of the Jewish State [15], said..."
On April 24, a Wikipedia editor has completely distorted the passage on Herf and Markovits. The editor rewrites it in a way that creates bias against these authors, even managing to begin a sentence: "Herf and Markovitz defend the Iraq war..." . It would at least have been more polite had this extensive "revision" been put up first for discussion. 204.210.35.48 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Philips is a regular contributer to BBC radio and various other news organizations, she seems as notable as any other journalist. I fail to see why she would not be admissable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole first paragraph of the "Criticism" section is very non-neutral and poisoning the well. Neither of the other sections have an intro questioning the motives for praise/attack, nowhere does it state who are what organization highly respect the authors, "smear campaign" as a phrase is non-neutral in itself, and it is not the place to speak of foreign aid.
Moshe just removing the following addition I made with this comment ""rv, we've already gone over this please see WP:Point, it is considered disruptive":
Please note that the above addition is completely based upon a NPR article of April 21, 2006 and the description given of Scheuer and his position is exactly as how NPR describes it. Moshe earlier made some comments about a more biased addition related to Scheuer by another editor but this is a more neutral presentation of his views. The NPR article is a general review of the controversy around the "Israel Lobby" paper and they clearly feel that Scheuer is a valid commentator. What do others think? -- LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your presumptions are wrong, especially the part about "one sentence". That was just one example of why I find him questionable--I could give more, but what's the point? And the prestige of the magazine is irrelevant when judging the nature of his views. 204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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
Molly Ivins: Pro-Israel 'Nutjobs' on the Attack http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20708
-- LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Molly is interesting - on all issues. However occasionally she gets tangled up - being pro-Israel and anti at the same time. Israel wont stand for it, dual loyalty is the myth she hasn't grasped yet.
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)
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)
Copied from the Guide to Layout:"Quotations Under this header, list any memorable quotations that are appropriate to the subject...........
This header is somewhat deprecated. Usually, the most relevant quotes can be placed directly into the article text in order to illustrate the topic. Lists of quotes are generally moved to Wikiquote and the Quotations section as a whole is replaced with a
badge, usually placed at the top of the external links section." 204.210.35.48 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Why such a huge paragraph for mere syndicated political commentator? How she describes herself is not notworthy, nor the entire list of her arguments. I've shortened that paragraph a bit. ← Humus sapiens ну? 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ivins' section is currently the same length as Melanie Phillips' section, which seems reasonable to me. — Ashley Y 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Except in this case, nothing was removed that wasn't already stated multiple times earlier in the article. I am removing the passages once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
From User talk:LuckyLittleGrasshopper who took issue with my edits re: Cole
"Hi LLG. Actually, you're working from an incorrect assumption. If my edits don't change anyone's mind regarding Cole's "Anti-Semitism" that's absolutely fine because that's not why I made the edit. It's there simply to disclose that Cole's defense of the paper is a clear case of him attempting to be both player and referee. Members of Cole's fanclub will, as you say, use Cole's self-serving rationalization that if he hasn't included every single Jew in the universe as having "dual loyalties" (but only the bad Jews who don't agree that Israel must to return to its 1949 borders) then he is somehow insulated from the charge of Anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. To use your Witney Houston example -if someone referred to her as a "druggie" who is probably on crack because she is black and from the ghetto AND has provided no evidence to back up that claim -just an "I think so" and a "I don't trust her to stay off drugs", then we'd have no problem identifying that person as a bigot even if they claimed "some of their 'best friends' are black". That is precisely what Cole does with his ad hominem assumptions on his blog regarding Firth, Eli Lake, and other Jews. In any case, it's cited, it's from the primary source, and it is presented without commentary, so it's up to the reader to decide. What I object to is Cole's fanclub attempting to either suppress Cole's own words, or injecting his ridiculous conspiracy theories into the article, such as the capital "L" in "Lobby" business. Armon 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"
"One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party. I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first."
Three questions Ashley. 1. Given that Cole provides absolutely no evidence for the claim that Feith is inordinately devoted to "Likud" (read "Israel") upon what basis other than his ethnicity are we to assume that Americans can't "trust him to put America first"? (hint -read the very next paragraph) 2. Given that Condoleezza Rice has much more to do with creating Bush's policies than Feith -is that supposed to mean that she's also guilty of somehow "putting Israel first"? and finally 3. Why does the same assertion regarding Rice not resonate so well? Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Dual loyalty - hmm must be your wife, not mine I hope.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I really think it is time to just summarize the content instead of taking up half the article with quotes. I would do it but I figure there are other people who may be more capable. As it currently stands it is not only tedious to read, but also may constitute a copyright violation. I really don't see how it is in any POV's interest to not change anything. Does anybody else agree with me here?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Isn't Tony Judt a notable US academic? 204.210.35.48 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you can see the response at the link. [24]-- Jersey Devil 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Massing belongs in both "mixed reviews" (where he has been put) and "responses to criticism". — Ashley Y 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it counts as a development, doesn't it? I think we should mention it. — Ashley Y 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was that big of a deal. We should only use blogs in rare cases. Since Cole has commented on the paper in places other than his personal blog we shouldn't have to use it as a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Petition" is not a "development" it's soapboxing -exactly what control is COPOMAJO supposed to have over "baseless charges of anti-Semitism" anyway? In any case, my intention was to remove the blogged chaff like that, not the Salon content. -- Armon 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, you're allowing a blog in one place but not in another, with the goal of silencing someone you disagree with. See why I object? Al 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The petition is a reaction to the paper's reception, so it is indeed relevant to this section. Moreover, the petition has made international news, thanks to Eve Fairbanks's piece [25] in the LA Times (reprinted even in Taiwan's China Post). Precis 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The petition itself may be unimportant, but Fairbanks points to it as a noteworthy example of how academicians are circumventing the core issues in the debate. The medium is the message. Precis 11:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Melanie Phillips has no particular qualification on the subject, and she is posting in her own personal blog. Her only claim to notability is that she also writes articles for newspapers, but this is not that. Cole, by contrast, is a professor specialising in the Middle East. In addition, if anti-Semitism is a serious charge, and I think it is, then developments relating to that charge are noteworthy. — Ashley Y 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My view is that for the most part anybody who claims "expertise" in modern politics is using imaginary criteria. The only thing that one really needs to know to be just as capable of formulating an intelligent opinion on politics is to be familar enough with the history of whatever region is being talked about. As much as some people want to believe there is nothing that makes someone "better" than others at political science, it is not math, to get attention all one needs is some kind of academic position, a view that shows the smallest example of novelty, and the will to draw attention to yourself. As innovative as people like Noam Chomsky are in their respective fields, when they try their hands at political commentary they are no more innovative than anyone else.
Anyways I guess I will accept the removal of all blogs including philips'- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
IMHO, external links are governed by WP:EL, not WP:RS because they are external links, not sources. Of course, WP:EL appears to incorporate WP:RS by reference, at least in part, so I'm not sure where that gets you. TheronJ 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that only time that an external link can be as biased as the one that is being argued over is in special circumstances, like when the bias website is the subject of the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Readers/ editors should be aware of vigilant censorship/ vandalism:
An editor (al Siverburg) has just vandalized/ censored a reference on AIPAC article on a book by former Congressman Paul Findley. Editor made unsubstantiated charge that Findley is linked with Holocaust deniers. Editor is exercising POV censorship of reality of this book and its revelations. Dogru144 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But please explain how this is not censorious to to delete books. He has stripped out AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby. Yet he has left intact a reference to a group that is acting to bar Israeli interests from Washington. I am being a gentleman and am not stripping out that reference. I hope that we can follow Voltaire and Diderot and allow for free access to information. When one erases reference to a book one is censoring. When one erases a cross reference one is censoring. Please look up the definition of censor. I appreciate that you agree to my right to include Findlay as a link. But please note that in the past 16 hours Al-Silverburg has engaged in an edit war on this matter. One should not conduct disputes in this manner. It is for this reason that I used the term 'vandalism'. He should address his concerns in this manner. Dogru144 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of vandalism when my edit was nothing of the sort. I removed your links because I did not think they were particularly relevant. In fact I think that much of Findleys work is quite unencyclopedic. I understand he was mentioned in this article, so I suppose I would agree with the book that most talked about the M & W paper, but in further inclusion would be inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
is not a POV reference; and AIPAC is. Your conduct, and stripping/deleting (how can this not be recognized as anything but censorious?) without explanation on discussion page is what prompts me to make my charges. As I said above, please act allow for free discussion. I am not stripping out CNI. Have I accused you of POV for including it? Dogru144 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of compromise I will keep the the AIPAC link, but I am removing the Paul Findley books from the external links. While you never said I was being "pov" you have accused me several times of vandalism and censorship which is even more unwarranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a "See Also" link to the Wik article on The Council for the National Interest [26], 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)
The Massing article, currently reference #25, has just been inserted as an external link. Why the duplication? Precis 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just removed a passage from an offending editor that ends with: "Most of the critics are in fact Jewish or descendents of Jewish parent." While this may be true, it doesn't belong in this article any more than "Most of the approbation comes from non-Jews." This editor repeatedly violates WP:OR by providing his own analysis, and his remarks are misplaced and off topic. Precis 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I only stated the obvious since most of the listed critics in the criticism section are in fact Jewish. An encyclopedia is based on facts and I cited facts, or what people and newspapers have cited around this research paper. I have provided facts relating to the paper and its perception, since 75% of the page is about the perception and reception of the research, and not about the paper itself. And "offending" is to delete other's contribution to the page, which is described as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Akolsrud 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you for the directions. I moved the Nir entry and decided to delete the Peretz entry since it seems to go on a tangent to the topic. If I am wrong on this entry please feel free to revert my decision. Sincerely 70.112.169.71 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I realized that I wasn't signed in when doing the changes. Sincerely, Akolsrud 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
This is just a normal cheap shot used by wiki on a regular basis. Someone should email Davis Duke and have him send $$ and a big kiss to AIPAC - then publish it ( where I don't know, .....
I removed this section. Didn't seem neccessary.
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)
Many critics of the article are saying it is riddled with factual errors. It may be useful to list all of the claimed factual errors and then do a bit of research to confirm or deny these claims on an individual basis. Again, such a neutral meta-analysis is what Wikipedia does best. -- 70.48.240.217 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(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:
This:
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)
Check congressional records - yah fat chance, you will be 80 when you emerge - money comes from taxpayers, then goes to Israel, then they spend it on US corporations, who send the money overseas ( China etc ) - guess who got screwed.
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)
Available from here: [2]
-- 70.48.240.217 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What is known about IRmep is that: 1) Their ongoing surveys of Middle East Acadmics is respected enough to receive hearings in the Senate http://www.irmep.org/gaza.ram 2) Their survey shows what the broader community of Middle East experts from academia(rather than lobbies or "think tanks) think about the Israel Lobby study findings. 3) Their director is a respected researcher and author. (this comment was added by anonymous user User:70.108.159.63 on April 6 2006)
I'm restoring this study because the release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This means the study results are notable and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for newspapers.
Secondly, Moshe... said that the study wasn't about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper. If you read the study or the news release, you'll see that this is incorrect. Deuterium 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who as even looked at IRmep's website for more than a 30 seconds will see it is not even reputable enough for the guardian. It is clearly a propaganda website with a bad dress-up job designed to make it look official.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The version after I tried to make it a balanced reflection of the actual editorial (I have bolded the main balancing clause):
What you converted it to a simple and unhestitant accusation of anti-Semitism without explicit comment/explanation:
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)
Strange how Ha'aretz finally ends up agreeing with Walt et al.
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"
Also, the study's press release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This proves that the study results are notable and significant and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for mainstream newspapers. Deuterium 01:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is ridiculous that you suggest that IRmep is a reliable source. Here is a excerpt from their website describing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.-
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)
" Moshe: is your definition of a reliable source one that endorses your world view? " very good!
How about one that actually is reputable and reliable enough to trust their claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that she is a professor of "Professor of Yiddish Literature, and Professor of Comparative Literature" as per her page: [5] -- it appears to me that she is making a comment far outside of her domain of expertise. I do not think her opinion on the article is worth including if we want to have a high bar here. -- 64.230.127.239 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
David Duke is at least as credible as Dershowitz.
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)
CIA official Michael Scheuer: Does Israel conduct covert action in America? You bet it does
Michael Scheuer [8] 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". [9]
Scheuer must have noticed that more Iraelis are deported for spying than all other nationalities combined - what a bastard to mention it.
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
The following has been excised:
"After the article was completed, it was first approved for publication and then rejected by the Atlantic Monthly."
As far as I can tell, this misinformation is due to Antony Loewenstein [10] 204.210.35.48 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This newly added section, instead of describing the paper, consists almost entirely of quotes that function to defend the paper against charges of antisemitism. One could just as easily taken quotes from the paper that promote the opposing point of view (as numerous journalists have made clear). 204.210.35.48 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example to show that "The lobby" section is not neutral, but rather serves to whitewash the paper's provocations. The following three passages occur in propinquity in the working paper, in sequence:
(1) It is not meant to suggest that 'the lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.
(2) The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant
effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.
(3) Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them.
Passages (1) and (3) were chosen for Wikipedia, while the less friendly passage (2) was passed over.
Playing a similar game, one could create a section of quotes called "What the Lobby does", suggesting a sinister, controlling cabal whose core is American Jews:
(a) "The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. "
(b) "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach."
(c) "Were it not for the Lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today."
(d) "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress."
(e) "The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections."
(f) "Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."
(g) "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel." 204.210.35.48 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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 [11].
(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)
The following should be excised:
According to Juan Cole, it was the publisher, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby". [2]
Reason: Mearsheimer and Walt themselves capitalize "Lobby" in the KSG working paper [13] 204.210.35.48 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Juan Cole, it was the London Review of Books, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby".[4] The reasons for capitalization of "Lobby" in the Kennedy School of Government paper have as yet not been explained. I hope your new entry is not reverted for a while, because it will stimulate intriguing speculation. How do you suppose the capitalization was snuck into the KSG paper under the authors' noses? Say, d'ya think it was ...AIPAC? 204.210.35.48 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here is a classic example of poisoning the well. This description of CAMERA was inserted on April 19.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a pro-Israel media watchdog group which in the past has been very critical of National Public Radio and Steven Spielberg, published a detailed study of the paper,....
Here is a second example, also inserted on April 19.
British journalist and Frontpage Magazine contributor Melanie Phillips called the paper a ...
Note: She is a columnist for the Daily Mail, but it serves to create more bias by identifying her as a contributor to FrontPage.
The passage about Melanie Phillips ends as follows:
Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stand "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the London Review of Books". Phillips had nothing to say about the rejection of the paper by the Atlantic Monthly.
The last sentence above is the Wikipedia editor's own rebuttal of Melanie Phillips's criticism. It promotes the point of view that the Atlantic Monthly rejected the working paper because of the Lobby, rather than for other reasons such as poor scholarship.
If this kind of bowdlerization of the Criticism section is to be allowed, then it should be permissible as well to append snide comments rebutting quotes in the Praise section, such as "Professor X had nothing to say about Hamas's call for the destruction of Israel." Or one could poison the well: "Tony Judt, who is on record as having called for the effective elimination of the Jewish State [15], said..."
On April 24, a Wikipedia editor has completely distorted the passage on Herf and Markovits. The editor rewrites it in a way that creates bias against these authors, even managing to begin a sentence: "Herf and Markovitz defend the Iraq war..." . It would at least have been more polite had this extensive "revision" been put up first for discussion. 204.210.35.48 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Philips is a regular contributer to BBC radio and various other news organizations, she seems as notable as any other journalist. I fail to see why she would not be admissable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole first paragraph of the "Criticism" section is very non-neutral and poisoning the well. Neither of the other sections have an intro questioning the motives for praise/attack, nowhere does it state who are what organization highly respect the authors, "smear campaign" as a phrase is non-neutral in itself, and it is not the place to speak of foreign aid.
Moshe just removing the following addition I made with this comment ""rv, we've already gone over this please see WP:Point, it is considered disruptive":
Please note that the above addition is completely based upon a NPR article of April 21, 2006 and the description given of Scheuer and his position is exactly as how NPR describes it. Moshe earlier made some comments about a more biased addition related to Scheuer by another editor but this is a more neutral presentation of his views. The NPR article is a general review of the controversy around the "Israel Lobby" paper and they clearly feel that Scheuer is a valid commentator. What do others think? -- LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your presumptions are wrong, especially the part about "one sentence". That was just one example of why I find him questionable--I could give more, but what's the point? And the prestige of the magazine is irrelevant when judging the nature of his views. 204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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
Molly Ivins: Pro-Israel 'Nutjobs' on the Attack http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20708
-- LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Molly is interesting - on all issues. However occasionally she gets tangled up - being pro-Israel and anti at the same time. Israel wont stand for it, dual loyalty is the myth she hasn't grasped yet.
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)
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)
Copied from the Guide to Layout:"Quotations Under this header, list any memorable quotations that are appropriate to the subject...........
This header is somewhat deprecated. Usually, the most relevant quotes can be placed directly into the article text in order to illustrate the topic. Lists of quotes are generally moved to Wikiquote and the Quotations section as a whole is replaced with a
badge, usually placed at the top of the external links section." 204.210.35.48 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Why such a huge paragraph for mere syndicated political commentator? How she describes herself is not notworthy, nor the entire list of her arguments. I've shortened that paragraph a bit. ← Humus sapiens ну? 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ivins' section is currently the same length as Melanie Phillips' section, which seems reasonable to me. — Ashley Y 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Except in this case, nothing was removed that wasn't already stated multiple times earlier in the article. I am removing the passages once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
From User talk:LuckyLittleGrasshopper who took issue with my edits re: Cole
"Hi LLG. Actually, you're working from an incorrect assumption. If my edits don't change anyone's mind regarding Cole's "Anti-Semitism" that's absolutely fine because that's not why I made the edit. It's there simply to disclose that Cole's defense of the paper is a clear case of him attempting to be both player and referee. Members of Cole's fanclub will, as you say, use Cole's self-serving rationalization that if he hasn't included every single Jew in the universe as having "dual loyalties" (but only the bad Jews who don't agree that Israel must to return to its 1949 borders) then he is somehow insulated from the charge of Anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. To use your Witney Houston example -if someone referred to her as a "druggie" who is probably on crack because she is black and from the ghetto AND has provided no evidence to back up that claim -just an "I think so" and a "I don't trust her to stay off drugs", then we'd have no problem identifying that person as a bigot even if they claimed "some of their 'best friends' are black". That is precisely what Cole does with his ad hominem assumptions on his blog regarding Firth, Eli Lake, and other Jews. In any case, it's cited, it's from the primary source, and it is presented without commentary, so it's up to the reader to decide. What I object to is Cole's fanclub attempting to either suppress Cole's own words, or injecting his ridiculous conspiracy theories into the article, such as the capital "L" in "Lobby" business. Armon 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"
"One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party. I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first."
Three questions Ashley. 1. Given that Cole provides absolutely no evidence for the claim that Feith is inordinately devoted to "Likud" (read "Israel") upon what basis other than his ethnicity are we to assume that Americans can't "trust him to put America first"? (hint -read the very next paragraph) 2. Given that Condoleezza Rice has much more to do with creating Bush's policies than Feith -is that supposed to mean that she's also guilty of somehow "putting Israel first"? and finally 3. Why does the same assertion regarding Rice not resonate so well? Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Dual loyalty - hmm must be your wife, not mine I hope.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I really think it is time to just summarize the content instead of taking up half the article with quotes. I would do it but I figure there are other people who may be more capable. As it currently stands it is not only tedious to read, but also may constitute a copyright violation. I really don't see how it is in any POV's interest to not change anything. Does anybody else agree with me here?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Isn't Tony Judt a notable US academic? 204.210.35.48 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you can see the response at the link. [24]-- Jersey Devil 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Massing belongs in both "mixed reviews" (where he has been put) and "responses to criticism". — Ashley Y 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it counts as a development, doesn't it? I think we should mention it. — Ashley Y 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was that big of a deal. We should only use blogs in rare cases. Since Cole has commented on the paper in places other than his personal blog we shouldn't have to use it as a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The "Petition" is not a "development" it's soapboxing -exactly what control is COPOMAJO supposed to have over "baseless charges of anti-Semitism" anyway? In any case, my intention was to remove the blogged chaff like that, not the Salon content. -- Armon 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, you're allowing a blog in one place but not in another, with the goal of silencing someone you disagree with. See why I object? Al 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The petition is a reaction to the paper's reception, so it is indeed relevant to this section. Moreover, the petition has made international news, thanks to Eve Fairbanks's piece [25] in the LA Times (reprinted even in Taiwan's China Post). Precis 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The petition itself may be unimportant, but Fairbanks points to it as a noteworthy example of how academicians are circumventing the core issues in the debate. The medium is the message. Precis 11:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Melanie Phillips has no particular qualification on the subject, and she is posting in her own personal blog. Her only claim to notability is that she also writes articles for newspapers, but this is not that. Cole, by contrast, is a professor specialising in the Middle East. In addition, if anti-Semitism is a serious charge, and I think it is, then developments relating to that charge are noteworthy. — Ashley Y 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My view is that for the most part anybody who claims "expertise" in modern politics is using imaginary criteria. The only thing that one really needs to know to be just as capable of formulating an intelligent opinion on politics is to be familar enough with the history of whatever region is being talked about. As much as some people want to believe there is nothing that makes someone "better" than others at political science, it is not math, to get attention all one needs is some kind of academic position, a view that shows the smallest example of novelty, and the will to draw attention to yourself. As innovative as people like Noam Chomsky are in their respective fields, when they try their hands at political commentary they are no more innovative than anyone else.
Anyways I guess I will accept the removal of all blogs including philips'- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
IMHO, external links are governed by WP:EL, not WP:RS because they are external links, not sources. Of course, WP:EL appears to incorporate WP:RS by reference, at least in part, so I'm not sure where that gets you. TheronJ 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is clear that only time that an external link can be as biased as the one that is being argued over is in special circumstances, like when the bias website is the subject of the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Readers/ editors should be aware of vigilant censorship/ vandalism:
An editor (al Siverburg) has just vandalized/ censored a reference on AIPAC article on a book by former Congressman Paul Findley. Editor made unsubstantiated charge that Findley is linked with Holocaust deniers. Editor is exercising POV censorship of reality of this book and its revelations. Dogru144 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But please explain how this is not censorious to to delete books. He has stripped out AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby. Yet he has left intact a reference to a group that is acting to bar Israeli interests from Washington. I am being a gentleman and am not stripping out that reference. I hope that we can follow Voltaire and Diderot and allow for free access to information. When one erases reference to a book one is censoring. When one erases a cross reference one is censoring. Please look up the definition of censor. I appreciate that you agree to my right to include Findlay as a link. But please note that in the past 16 hours Al-Silverburg has engaged in an edit war on this matter. One should not conduct disputes in this manner. It is for this reason that I used the term 'vandalism'. He should address his concerns in this manner. Dogru144 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of vandalism when my edit was nothing of the sort. I removed your links because I did not think they were particularly relevant. In fact I think that much of Findleys work is quite unencyclopedic. I understand he was mentioned in this article, so I suppose I would agree with the book that most talked about the M & W paper, but in further inclusion would be inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
is not a POV reference; and AIPAC is. Your conduct, and stripping/deleting (how can this not be recognized as anything but censorious?) without explanation on discussion page is what prompts me to make my charges. As I said above, please act allow for free discussion. I am not stripping out CNI. Have I accused you of POV for including it? Dogru144 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of compromise I will keep the the AIPAC link, but I am removing the Paul Findley books from the external links. While you never said I was being "pov" you have accused me several times of vandalism and censorship which is even more unwarranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a "See Also" link to the Wik article on The Council for the National Interest [26], 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)
The Massing article, currently reference #25, has just been inserted as an external link. Why the duplication? Precis 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just removed a passage from an offending editor that ends with: "Most of the critics are in fact Jewish or descendents of Jewish parent." While this may be true, it doesn't belong in this article any more than "Most of the approbation comes from non-Jews." This editor repeatedly violates WP:OR by providing his own analysis, and his remarks are misplaced and off topic. Precis 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I only stated the obvious since most of the listed critics in the criticism section are in fact Jewish. An encyclopedia is based on facts and I cited facts, or what people and newspapers have cited around this research paper. I have provided facts relating to the paper and its perception, since 75% of the page is about the perception and reception of the research, and not about the paper itself. And "offending" is to delete other's contribution to the page, which is described as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Akolsrud 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you for the directions. I moved the Nir entry and decided to delete the Peretz entry since it seems to go on a tangent to the topic. If I am wrong on this entry please feel free to revert my decision. Sincerely 70.112.169.71 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I realized that I wasn't signed in when doing the changes. Sincerely, Akolsrud 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)