Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Changing the Intro, matching with "U.S. Israel Lobby" article

Right now the intro is terrible, especially starting:

Many decisions made in the Houses of Parliament are made as a direct result of lobbying by parliamentary colleagues, constituents or outside pressure groups, including “private companies known as lobbyists” employed by organizations.[3][4] These organizations, which include both non-ethnic political groups as well as grassroots ethnic organizations of Christian, secular and Jewish-Britons, have seen increasing growth and influence in recent years

Those two links don't even say anything in regards to Jewish, Zionist, or Israel lobbies. What the crank?

I say delete that part, and ammend what comes before it to match the "Israel lobby in U.S."

"...is a term used to describe the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and as groups, seek and have sought to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of Zionism, Israel or the specific policies of its government."

Just replace "States" with "Kingdom" :)

I'll implement this in a day or two unless someone objects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam7z (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Janine Roberts

why is she quoted here and who is she?

Excerpts of her writing: "Barack Obama under the Israeli lobby pressure took this position “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel...” Hilary Clinton went further. She is calling for “an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital’ and thus is definitely the Zionist favourite. Since 2004 Obama has received $93,700 of AIPAC money, while Hillary has taken $349,073."

How is this not biased? How can people so biased be quoted to objectively illustrate a point on this topic?

User:CuJ@ (9/11/2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.243.226 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious dichotomies...

There are at least three serious dichotomies relating to this article; one between the title and the contents; one between the title and the header; and one between the header and the contents.

The header mentions some institutionalised organizations which deal with promoting Anglo-Israeli relations. Lobbying is certainly part of what they do, but they also undertake various other activities. Conversely, the lobbying activities of these organisations do not constitute the whole, or even necessarily a significant part, of pro-Israel lobbying in the UK. As with anti- Israel lobbying, there is a large number of writers, journalists, personalities, individual; politicans, letter-writers to the press, etc. who are involved in this process. It may thus be said that the very title of the article is tendentious, as it implicitly suggests some formal coalition - without the article giving any evidence of such a coalition. This is of course a standard feature of conspiracy theories associated with Jews and/or Israel. Thus either the article needs re-titling, or the header needs to be rewritten.

Without wishing to get too tedious, it is easy to extend the arguments of the above paragrpah to point out the other two dichotomies I have mentioned.

I am flabbergasted that three WikiProjects have given this very weak cut-and-paste job of an article, with its inconsequential structure, a 'B' rating. All we have here is a selective series of citations of comments about actual or alleged lobbying, all of them of a 'conspiracy theory' nature, without any attempt at dispassionate analysis. An uninformed student coming to this article to help with a school project would undoubtedly come away with the feeling that something murky is going on. Hardly therefore the neutral point of view which WP is supposed to promote.

There already exist separate WP articles on the pro-Israel organisations mentioned in the header. I cannot therefore see why the article is needed, if that is all there is to it.

On the other hand, if the article is to cover debate as to the extent and influence of pro-Israel lobbying in the UK (a perfectly proper topic, as would be one on the extent and influence of , say, pro-Palestinian lobbying -although I note that Palestine lobbying in the United Kingdom does not exist - yet), the header is utterly irrelevant. It should instead cover the the fact that argument and debate prevail as to the existence, extent and nature of a lobby for Israel in British society. The article should then set out, as far as possible, evidence on either side, and then summarise notable instances of arguments addressed on either side. It needs to place these clearly in the contexts of both anti-Jewish propaganda and Islamist propaganda, (amongst other contexts of course).

If it were possible to construct such an article without it being virulently undermined by partisans of either side in the Irael-Palestine argument, it might then have some value.

At the moment it has close to none.--Smerus (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC) A constructive suggestion, I hope - please look at the article Israel lobby in the United States which is much better structured , much more dispassionate and altogether more 'encyclopaedic' ---Smerus (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK in view of the deafening silence I have begun to tidy up the article myself--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all your comment was rather poorly written and confusing, so difficult to reply to; plus one would not assume that you actually would do anything more with the article. Please don't try to clean this up to make lobbying groups look like they aren't lobbying groups. Just because a group denies it is lobbying doesn't mean it isn't. And people's opinions and perceptions -- including at Oxford Union - also count. Plus these are all one year old articles. I'll find some new ones. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing Name of Article without Discussion

• First, even if you didn't get a response to your first post, it was no excuse to change the title of the article without discussion of the fact that's what you wanted to do. Wikipedia has a broad definition of lobbying and this article title was in accordance with that: Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.[1][2] Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.[3][4][5]
• There might be six new articles about the Israel Lobby in the UK you didn't give people a chance to come up with. I won't immediately move the article back to Israel_Lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom, but soon.
• Obviously you have a strong POV which comes out in your largely unsourced first two paragraphs.
• Now that we know you aren't just writing philosophical treatises in talk, please try to make you points more clear to encourage people to reply.
• If there is a significant Arab/Muslim lobby in UK, as you seem to believe, then they also should get their own article. I'm not opposed to that as long as it's WP:RS and not POV.
• Now I'll review your actual changes. Perhaps we should just revert to orginal before you started editing and start again. FYI I had problems with last lead but hadn't gotten around to with dealing with yet. By the way, does britain have or are the lobbies pushing for laws against criticizing Israel as bad as in Canada? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thinks Smerus is right that the original article did need some work on it. And there's some good stuff in there that he's included. I'd like to see some details as to:

• Structure: what groups are included as part of the lobby
• How the lobby works
• The lobby and the British media/public discourse

Colombo Man (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at article carefully yet, but always keep the good stuff :-) One issue is that in a lot of articles the Israel Lobby is called the "Jewish Lobby" and nothing else, so we have to integrate that as one of the alternative labels. Starting with one that popped up this am without even searching for "Israel Lobby" phrase: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast Rumours of war spread as Israel flexes its muscle

The Observer - UK] which notes in part the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre in the UK, two influential Jewish lobby groups who have brought over experts to brief the media (Brief the media being code words for lobbying in UK evidently, but still lobbying under wikipedia standards

I'm starting to look for other articles and will start by listing them here since busy with other stuff for couple days. In case anyone else wants to have some fun :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on Naming Conventions

Better late than never let me quote the relevant paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Controversial names

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.' Please note the last sentence and the fact that a number of people have objected to this move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel lobby v Israel lobbying

Sorry Smerus, I know you've done a lot of work on this page, but I don't agree with the replacement of the page on the "Israel lobby" with "Israel lobbying" in the UK. The existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is attested to in various publications and is common parlance. For instance see:

• http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140009
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/mar/11/pressandpublishing.middleeastthemedia
• http://www.thejc.com/node/5456

I recommend returning the name to the previous one.

Colombo Man (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the existence of an 'Israel lobby' in the UK is asserted by some, but denied by others (as the article makes clear). That means its existence is contentious. We don't have the same situation here as in the USA where there is an Israel lobby as an entity. And the UK organisations listed in the article don't have as their sole, or even major, objective lobbying parts of the UK executive. In the examples you cite:

no 1 (from 2002) is the controversial New Statesman article which alleges but does not prove, a lobby, and which was subsequently withdrawn by its editor

no 2 (from 2004) is a reference to that article and John Pilger's interpretation of it

no 3. (2008) is an article headed 'Squabbling pro-Israel lobbies' (NB!!!) and refers to 'Competition between two pro-Israel advocacy groups over their lobbying'.

None of this indicates, as you suggest, that the term 'Israel lobby' is used in common parlance in the UK. in general, 'Israel lobby' may sometimes be used as a short-hand for advocates of Israel - but by using 'Israel lobby' as an article title in this case, Wikipedia effectively endorses the notion that an 'Israel lobby' does exist as an entity in the UK. That is not WP:NPOV. I thought carefully before moving but I am confident that this renaming is in accordance with WP principles and is in the interests of the reputation and the impartiality of WP. Of course I thank you for your interest and for giving me cause to consider once again the principles on which I acted.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a POV move, and should be undone. Of course there's an Israel lobby in the UK. BICOM says of themselves, "BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre, is an independent organisation devoted to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in the UK."[1]. That's a lobbying organization. BICOM isn't as successful as AIPAC, but they're still a lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

John, maybe the issue here is that you are in America and perhaps your understanding of 'lobby' is not the same as that which pertains this side of the Atlantic. If anything, the insistence that 'the lobby' in the US is the same as 'the lobby' in the UK, or that lobbying in the two countries are identical processes, is a non-neutral POV. Where such cultural differences exist, WP should recognise them. Of course BICOM is a lobbying organisation - but it is not 'the Israel lobby' in the UK, nor is there any consortium of such organisations in the UK which is an 'Israel lobby', and neither does BICOM in any way act a ringleader or spokesbody for such a consortium. Nor do any of the many citations in the article support such an interpretation of BICOM. BICOM's role as an organisation lobbying for Israel is of course indispoutable and is properly recognised in the title I have moved this article to. Please see also my response to Colombo Man above. Thank you for your interest in this topic.--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, what matters is how wikipedia defines lobbying, not current law or practice in a particular country. Also, as for organization, one article reports on an attempt to put together a more organized group like American Israel Public Affairs Committee or Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. So there are people thinking in those terms. And of course how many articles call these groups the Israel or Jewish lobby without bothering to define there terms since they assume people are smart enough to know and don't write for wikipedia :-). CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(After edit conflict.) See the reference "So they say they're in charge" in the article. That Jewish Chronicle article describes in some detail the effort in 2006 by the Jewish Leadership Council and BICOM to organize a lobby in the UK (and yes, the article uses the term) along the lines of AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.[2] Denying the existence of a Israel lobby in the UK isn't going to fly. One can argue over how much political clout it has, though. --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear (or, anyway, I will try to be so). No-one can doubt or deny that there are groups lobbying political institutions in the UK for (and, for that matter, against) Israel. The question is whether or not these organisations constitute 'a lobby', suggesting a US-style high-profile, high-organised political machine. Clearly the various citations given in the article reveal that such a suggestion is highly contentious (which it would not be, in, say the US). As it is contentious, it is WP:NNPOV to entitle the article in a way that endorses such a suggestion as neutral. The present title fully acknowledges the existence of pro-Israel lobbying in the UK without endorsing those non-neutral points of view which suggest that lobbying here is US style. Wikipedia defines 'lobbying' - but it doesn't I think define 'lobby' - and if it did it would have to differentiate the understanding of this term in England and in the US. I have tried to bring up the differentiation in my editing of Lobbying in the United Kingdom and looking at that again may be a useful starting point.--Smerus (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The pro-Israel lobby in the UK does appear to be less influential than the one in the US, but that doesn't mean it's not a lobby. Some minor UK lobbies identified as such include "HMO lobby"[3] (which lobbies against the evils of "studentification"), the fox-hunting lobby[4], and the anti-genetically-modified food lobby.[5]. So the UK has lobbies, just like the US. --John Nagle (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please think this through again. I have not at any stage said or implied that no-one loibbies in the UK for Israel. The UK does have lobbies - which I have never disputed, and is not disputed in the present title of this article, and which indeed I have written about in Lobbying in the United Kingdom. They include the 'minor' (your description) organisations you cite. But they are not 'just like' lobbies in the US. Indeed they are very different. In the US lobbying is a major industry affecting all the organs of state, even courts, and whose activities are subject to specific legislation and controls. 'The gun lobby', 'the Israel lobby', etc. in America have the clout and firepower of major corporations. Such things, for better or worse, do not exist in the UK. To imply that they do - and to class BICOM, even suggestively, with AIPAC - is to make a major category error. That is why - as I think the article itself makes clear, in entries made well before I had any involvement with it - the very assertion of an 'Israel lobby' in the UK is contentious. WP should not take sides in such a contention. I have tried not to do so in all aspects of my editing of the article. --Smerus (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And that is, indeed, the whole point; people are implying, or stating outright, that there is an "Israel lobby" in the United Kingdom that is similar to the "Israel lobby" in the United States - this is at best a categorization error, at worst a deliberate misrepresentation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a repeat of the action that led to the famous arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Administrators_admonished. --John Nagle (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Basics?

Established editors should consider whatever wiki-policy says on naming, because I am certainly new to that. This article’s history, of which I am aware, reads like this in my book: Some of this article and previous sectioning was severed/brought from the previous, non-specific ‘Israeli Lobby’ article; then specific US and UK articles were created or utilized. This seems to have been because ref’d UK sources/locations started appearing; this did not please editors contesting almost every entry on the generic topic.

There are some basic, valid questions here. How important is parallel naming in wiki-policy for ‘similar’ articles in different countries? Are these based on individual histories and differences and similar names are derived? I’d guess they should be based on what available RSs say and take it from there. Why is it in the news, or history books, or have effects.

I’ve seen refs that report US groups crossing the pond to establish their similar elsewhere. Is this a change in organization, influence and methods? The UK is certainly different; maybe they work in cloakrooms rather than the lobby, I dunno. In any case, hasbara, both as individual acts and as an organized other-government advertising institution, admittedly sits umbrella-like over some of it.

Another consideration is where the new title will lead. Lobbying ‘on Israel’ implies two or more povs, and one pov appears to be non-existent, as the red-link above indicates. Will this be included, soon? Lobbying ‘for Israel’ on the other hand, implies one direction with several facets. The former article title, rightly or wrongly was certainly closer to that, or at least implied; the current article may include more facets. I believe 'for Israel' is a better move.

The likely size of the article also becomes a consideration. In my limited experience, the ‘on’ title will likely grow too large; half of it isn’t even currently written. ‘On’ also will entail a higher level of stress, heat and likely institute a new front in the existing propaganda war, and minimization thereof.

The proposed ‘for Israel’ title largely existed/exists, though possibly facetly-challenged. It has apparently motivated editors from several povs. I think it is a more appropriate title and can grow into a better quality article. I also believe the noted red-link will turn blue as a result, stand on its own merits, and interest another group of editors.

While we are here, should it be colour, labour and theatre? Others may have additional basic considerations on the title. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Definition of Lobbying

Since some people obviously believe that substituting their own definitions for a well sourced wikipedia definition is OK, let me remind you of how it is defined the wikipedia lobbying article: Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.[1][2] Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.[3][4][5] CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for lobbying in the UK barely existing, see this study by the Hansard Society, Friend or Foe: Lobbying in British democracy (Jan 2007). Also see the House of Commons study, Lobbying by All-Party Groups. Checking the list of registered All-Party Groups, there's an entry for the All-Party Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group. The purpose is listed as "To create a better understanding of Israel, and to foster and promote links between Britain and Israel." The "Benefits received by group from sources outside Parliament" section says "Administrative support provided by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre." So there is a formal, organized Israel lobby in the UK registered with Parliament. --John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that Parliamentary All-Party Groups are not lobbying organisations. See text of article, with citations, in my latest edit. Always be cautious of interpreting British systems on the basis of American systems. Besides, if the Israel All-Party Group is the only evidence you can provide of a 'formnal, organized Israel lobby in the UK registered with Parliament', it is clearly no more influential than the parallel 'formal, organized' Palestine 'lobby in the UK registered with Parliament'. --Smerus (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: The House of Commons study you refer to is concerned with the following (and I quote from the source you cite):

1. We have received a memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

regarding a complaint made by the Editor of the Times, Mr Robert Thomson, that six named All Party Groups (APGs) had breached the rules requiring groups for which secretariat services are provided by a public relations company to name in their entry in the Register of APGs the ultimate client of the company which is meeting the cost of this assistance. The Commissioner’s memorandum is reproduced as an Appendix to this report.

2. We agree with the Commissioner that the complaint should be upheld in relation to three of the groups—those on Intellectual Property, Patient Safety and Pharmacy. We note that in each case the omissions were remedied by the public relations company concerned as soon as The Times had drawn attention to them in an article.

3. We also agree with the Commissioner that the complaints should not be upheld in respect of the APGs on Export, Fire Safety and Rescue and Mobile Communications, although we note that as a result of the Commissioner’s inquiries, it has been revealed that the Mobile Communications Group failed to register two areas of financial support which were not the subject of the complaint. Both of these have also now been registered, and the public relations firm concerned has apologised to the Commissioner for

the failure to do so at the correct time.

In other words, this report is concerned with use of Parliamentary premises for commercial public relations concerns. It has nothing to do with political lobbying. Once again, I advise research of British political procedures and traditions before jumping to conclusions.--Smerus (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What John quotes shows that this is well within the definition of lobbying per the well sourced wikipedia article. British legal standards of lobbying also can be mentioned, of course, since lobbying is usually regulated in some fashion by governments of nations. But individuals themselves can be lobbyists without organization and in fact one top Jewish individual was mentioned as being extremely influential lobbying for Israel and should be mentioned in the article. And, again, no one is opposed to you starting an Arab/Muslim Lobby in Britain since obviously all those people pushing for some form of recognition for Shariah law are lobbyists too. The issue is your trying to restrict wikipedia's definition to live only within the restrictions of British law which is incredibly POV. That's like saying the Abortion article should only be written from the perspective of the Catholic Church. Obviously absurd and a WP:POV and WP:OR imposition of your preferred definition of lobbying on this article which is unacceptable and which I'm going to revert tomorrow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I'm sure you're aware that we cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source. I'm sure you've also run into the WP:NOR at some point or other in your time on Wikipedia. Please review it; your theories about what activities are "well within the definition of lobbying" are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None the less, it is a handy reference, which we may use. Carol's point about framing the article with an exclusively British pov is quite valid, however, and must be accepted. Don't you agree? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas, CasualObserver'48, nicely as you ask, I cannot possibly agree. This is a classic case of trying to submerge the tree in the wood. This article is, and always has been, about lobbying in the UK. Encylopaedic articles should derive their contents form the article title. The article must therefore be written in the context of the UK, exactly as the article Israel lobby in the United States is written in the context of the US. Nothing prevents anyone who wishes writing an article about Israel lobbying in a world-wide context should they wish to - in fact it would be a useful thing to do. Such an article would presumably use as a basis the WP definition and note how circumstances vary in different parts of the world. But it is a nonsense, generically, to write about Foo in Fooland without taking account of any specific Fooland perspectives of Foo. Cultural sensitivity, is, after all, one of the touchstones - and indeed one of the most important touchstones - of WP. --Smerus (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I meant that all those sources that are mentioned in the article obviously are sources to refer to here, to bolster British sources which make it clear that lobbying is not just some narrow legal definition that may be imposed by British law. Sorry if I wasn't clear :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re "lobbying denial": The Hansard Society paper on lobbying Friend or Foe: Lobbying in British democracy (Jan 2007) starts by saying: "Lobbying is more widespread than it is often assumed to be by its critics and supporters." The thrust of that report is that lobbying is becoming more common, more organized, and more commercial in the UK. The UK Parliament doesn't require lobbyists to register (unlike the US Congress.) Instead, there is a relatively new (1996) "self-regulatory body", the Association of Professional Political Consultants, which maintains a register of members and lists for whom they lobby. On page 11 of that register, Champollion lists their clients, which include BICOM. Look under "Fee-Paying clients for whom UK PA consultancy services provided this quarter". --John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy with other things, but suffice it to say there was no announcement of changing, or consensus to change, the name of this article, I'll change it back soon. Will restructure it much as formerly, leaving in any good new stuff and we can tweak it and add new material from there. Unless someone wants to beat me to it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since, as you say, there has been no consensus one way or the other, you had better take this to a proper forum before changing it back as you intend.--Smerus (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly-related note, I was brought here by the request for input at WP:Israel. I don't really have anything to contribute to the above, but I am concerned about recent edits at Labour Friends of Israel (the first article I checked on reading this debate). A brand new editor made this first edit with a blatantly false edit summary, and completely changed the article (including removing several sources) - this looks a bit dodgy to me - is there a history of socking in this area? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(Re LFI article - the list of members did need work. I went back to a consensus version, then went through and checked every member of LFI listed. I removed four people from the LFI list (including Tony Blair) due to lack of a solid source, and listed them on the talk page. All others now have a properly footnoted citation to a reliable source with a link that works.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your (Smerus) unannounced edit was against a previous long-term consensus; it's just been complicated to revert it, which why it hasn't been yet. If you can't get a consensus here on changing it, you can pursue other options. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I screwed it up first try, which means I'll have to figure out what minor uncontroversial article I screwed up a few months back doing the same thing! Somehow I misintepreted John's message to mean he'd gone back to the original text before Smerus changed the name, but looking now he didn't. Anyway, maybe that'll be my afternoon fun job and then I'll move back to original title the right way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's time to move the article back. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the Smerus (talk · contribs) move. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the right way to do it is through a move, though once I read the WP:MOVE page I got confused on how to do it. So if you know now, go for it. I almost finished getting it back to old format (with new "activities" section as second section), integrating new material, so can just do that today in about 4 hours when get back home. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We need administrator assistance to move it back, because there's now a redirect in the way. --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you know how to request, go for it. I'll put up my revert/changes shortly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Union lobbying debate

Moved from my talk page to where more appropriately belongs here Thanks for your interest here, but I think your restitution of the Oxford Union debate paragraph was incorrect. My deletion was not as you suggest vandalism. If you look at the Jerusalem Post article cited, you will see that the entire debate was about the Israel lobby in the US and its effect on world media coverage - the debate therefore did not touch on lobbying in the UK. I would be grateful if you would check this and perhaps reconsider if you think it appropriate. Really the paragraph belongs more appropriately in the article Israel lobby in the United States. In the meantime I have left your replacement edit. With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate topic was "Pro-Israel lobby has stifled Western debate" - not debate in the U.S. So even if by some weird chance not one person mentioned the UK, the debate topic still was meant to be "Western" debate. And the votes were about "western" debate, not US debate. Also, we'll have to look at other sources besides the Jerusalem Post, because maybe it just failed to report mentions of any debate being stifled in the UK: Johnny Paul,Oxford Univ. debate: 'Pro-Israel lobby has stifled Western debate, Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2007 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's indeed look at other sources if anyone has them. The article cited reads 'The wording of the motion up for debate - "This house believes the pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel's actions" - led to a discussion on the role of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and accusations that it has suppressed criticism of Israel'. It then summarizes the arguments of each of the speakers, each of whom speaks (as reported) entirely in respect of the US lobby. If other reports indicate that anyone so much as mentioned a lobby in the UK, I think the paragraph would have a place. Or if the article were about Lobbying on Israel in the West. But in fact the article, however it is entitled, is about lobbying in the UK. Of course I'm not going to redelete the para, as I hate that Punch-and-Judy stuff. But I still feel it doesn't belong, unless someone can come up with additional citation. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you snuck it off the page again. It belongs there, per comments above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the material in question:

In May 2007 the Oxford Union, a British private debating society, entertained the proposition: “This House believes the pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel’s action.” The debate, moderated by British journalist Tim Sebastian, featured professor Norman Finkelstein, journalist Alexander Cockburn, former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and British journalist David Aaronovitch. Two-thirds of students voted that the pro-Israel lobby stifles debate. The report of the debate indicates that it centered on Israel lobbying in the US, and no mention is made of any discussion of Israel lobbying in the UK. (Johnny Paul,Oxford Univ. debate: 'Pro-Israel lobby has stifled Western debate, Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2007)

To begin with, it's not clear why this article would highlight one university debate reported on in one newspaper. Perhaps even more significantly, it's not actually about the topic of this article, which is Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Announced/Non-Consensus article very POV, disorganized/Getting Back to Original

Having finally read it carefully, it was amazing how many problems there were:

• Lead: POV against admitting there's a lobby, unsourced opinion
• Background = unnecessarily long definition of lobbying; unsourced; Balfour stuff good, needs source; RENAME "Activities" and include all info on different groups and pro-Israel initiatives
• Registered Parliamentary Groups in the United Kingdom dealing with Israel good: Can be subsection of Activities
• Debate on nature and influence of Israel lobbying Should go back to "Debate on lobby"
  • 'New Statesman' allegations of a formal lobby, and its apology: No need for heading; It's clear to me now that the whole debate on whether it was anti-semitic is OFF-topic and WP:undue. I guess we put up with it in past because most people will read it just as an example of Israel Lobbying
  • 3.2 2006-8 pro-Israel initiatives all this obviously belongs under Activities
  • Allegations of a formal lobby by Muslim and pro-Palestinian organizations in the UK Belongs BACK under "Criticism of lobby" -- WP:OR opinions about what the Muslim group said about who is or isn't in the lobby don't belong (sourced non-WP:OR info about that topic could go under 'Activities"); the rant from the blog is just a WP:UNDUE attempt to make the group look bad and should be deleted.
  • Opinions expressed by Liberal Democrat Party politicians, and their consequences Belongs BACK under "Criticism of lobby" - introductory info on Jenny being kicked out really WP:undue - people can go to her page and read about that. All that matters is what she said about the lobby. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the original page, Israel lobby in the UK, was moved without either consultation or consensus can't the page be reverted to it's orginal name and we proceed from there? Then, if there's agreement, we can change the name to Smerus's proposal.

Additionally, there needs to be info on the lobby's structure and something about it's history (briefly) eg establishment of the Zionist Federation in the 19th C + role of the lobby in the Balfour Declaration.

Colombo Man (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be working under the assumption that there is an "Israel lobby" in the U.K. This is a controversial notion at best, and, at least in the U.S. sense, quite inaccurate. Please review WP:NPOV. The current article covers the wider topic, which is good. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how much info a little research provides. Finding so much good stuff it's taking a little longer than I expected to update it. Even Conservative Friends of Israel calls itself a lobby! The real POV is trying to deny there is a lobby or that David Abrahams (Labour party donor)‎ is not worthy of his own article, despite his illustrious career and all the WP:RS news stories about his illegal contributions to Labour party.

Meanwhile, John, enlighten me. Are Conservative Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel all party groups or just lobby groups within their respective parties. Unclear from various sources, including the web sites of the groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do the other Friends of Israel groups describe themselves that way? Do reliable sources describe them that way? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Are Friends of Israel groups Parliamentary, Party or Private groups

• I'm hung up on new structure of this article because it just is not clear if the Labour Friends of Israel or Conservative Friends of Israel are Registered Parliamentary Groups in the United Kingdom dealing with Israel, either by themselves or through the parties. The current section on that topic is a bit confusing (and I've found non-confusing 2nd party explanations lacking). The wiki articles make statements that aren't clear and neither are their references.
• The most relevant information on that seems to be related to the Jewish Chronicle-referenced paragraph on the group of British academics etc who wrote a letter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life saying Friends of Israel - has "embedded itself in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government." etc and evidently asking for it to regulate these groups. More insights are provided in the actual letter which unfortunately has not been reproduced on any group's web sites, just a few not WP:RS sites like 1, and 2, 3 and 4. Which one do you think is best to use to bolster the already WP:RS (if negative) article about that effort?
• Anyway, here's current structure - much like the original one changed without notice or consensus by Smerus. So where do Friends of Israel party groups go?
  • History
  • Registered Parliamentary Groups
  • Party-related groups?? (place to put Friends of Israel in the 3 parties??)
  • Private groups and individuals
  • Debate over power of the lobby (no WP:RS denies there is one)
  • Criticism of the lobby

Comments?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unacceptable POV, since it assumes as a fact something which is unproven. Friends of Israel groups are not "lobbies", certainly not in the American sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Friends of Israel groups certainly are lobbby groups. 94.7.255.149 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wth?

Why is this article written as if there is some controversy over whether pro-Israel lobbies even exist? We keep talking about "allegations of a formal lobby" or similar gobbledygook, it's very perplexing. Can we just write a normal article about Israeli lobbying in the UK, including all significant points of view, without this frankly ridiculous notion that the Israel lobby is somehow comparable to the Loch Ness monster? Lobbying is a reality. Foreign lobbying, and diaspora ethnic-based lobbying, is a reality. There's an Arab lobby in the UK, too. There's probably an Andorran lobby for all I know. Talk of "allegations" is just bizarre. <eleland/talkedits> 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, checking talk and history, I see that the issue here is that of some kind of unified "command structure" behind pro-Israel lobbying in the UK. Uh, is that really an issue? Yes, there are some sources that treat UK pro-Israel advocacy groups as a more or less unified, singular "lobby" but that is really just an analytical abstraction, isn't it? I don't know of any (reliable) sources who actually argue that these guys are all getting together in secret and planning strategery. It's like any other interest group; it might make sense to talk about for example the UK rural lobby or fox hunting lobby, but that doesn't mean anybody is actually making conspiracy accusations.

Would it not be best to move this article to something like pro-Israeli lobbying in the United Kingdom, and downplay the weird focus on "allegations of a unified formal lobby" or whatever we are supposed to be arguing about? <eleland/talkedits> 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like the "car lobby" or the "Auto lobby" or the "insurance lobby." They may represent different companies with different interests and even conflicting goals, who sometimes they work together, but they are basically in the same industry. Such is the essence of lobbying.

Fyi I decided to just put the 3 Party lobbies in their own sections and am going to put up never version pretty soon, incorporating good edits like yours. Actually the criticism of the Indendent article should be under the party lobbying section since the charges of antisemitism most and perhaps only relevant when brought into political arena as when "Emanuele Ottolenghi of St Antony's College, Oxford, told a British all-parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism etc." which currently is in the article. Pretty tired after running around today but should have up by tomorrow pm. Then we can change the name back to what it should be. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Carol, you won't completely re-write the article in your own POV version, and then "put [it] up". Instead, you'll either put the suggested version into a workshop, or propose individual changes here. Meanwhile, have you found any reliable sources that describe the Friends of Israel parliamentary groups as "Israel lobbies"? That would be a good start. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, read my previous posts. I gave an outline of what I intend to do - as Smerus should have done. I basically revert to the past version with new sections added, using mostly sourced material already in the article. I only put up new material I think is wp:rs. If people disagree they can revert it and we can discuss it, go to WP:RS/N or whatever. I don't remember a mediation saying every single change should be passed by in talk first. Just a general wiki understandng you don't change the name without warning people; and it's courteous to outline major section changes, as I did. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying change your intentions, Carol. On this article we have User:Smerus, a longstanding editor with no history in the I-P conflict articles, who has been kind enough to bring this article into line with policy. Given your past contentious edits to this article, your strongly held one-sided views on this topic (and many related ones - see the Talk:Rahm Emanuel to refresh your memory of just such a recent conflict), and your previous edit history, there is no doubt that this idea is an extraordinarily bad one. Combine that with the fact that the article finally does comply with policy, and it is obvious that your attempt at a complete re-write will undoubtedly fail to comply with Wikipedia policy, and will only lead to massive disruption. Instead, either put the suggested version into a workshop, or propose individual changes here. Meanwhile, have you found any reliable sources that describe the Friends of Israel parliamentary groups as "Israel lobbies"? That would be a good start. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that you do not address the points that Eleland and I make in our first two comments in this section? Ignoring people's comments and criticism of the overall view that there isn't a lobby, while making demands of them is very contentious editing as well, don't you think? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your points. Why haven't you addressed mine? Ignoring people's comments and criticism of the promotion of the POV as fact that there is a lobby, while making demands of them is very contentious editing as well, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just notice this. The POV is deleting all the WP:RS saying there is a lobby! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources I've been deleting don't even use the word "lobby", so how could they be saying there is a lobby? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with New Statesman Cover paragaraph

Jayjg reverted my change to the second paragraph of the New Statesman section. I’m willing to discuss this issue and make modifications per below; hopefully he is too.

• This is not an article about antisemitism, but about Israel lobbying in the UK; therefore the second paragraph on the New Statesmen should reflect that fact.
• The most controversial aspect of the New Statesman cover is the title “A Kosher Conspiracy” -- which information is left out! Leaving that out makes the criticism and protests seem quite irrational and seems POV. The sources mention it; the article should.
• Since this article is about lobbying, the lead sentence of the paragraph should refer to the fact that the cover of the New Statesman was brought to the all-party group. Here’s another version that does so better.

”Emanuele Ottolenghi of St Antony's College, Oxford mentioned the cover of that New Statesman issue to a British all-parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism. She said the cover, entitled “A Kosher Conspiracy?” and portraying a gold star of David sitting on top of a Union Flag, evoked "classical anti-Jewish stereotypes" implying "wealth, "conspiracy" and "dishonesty" on the part of British Jews.”

• Re: The Zuckerman article - the two sentences is a minor criticism in comparison to the all-party criticism and therefore WP:UNDUE
• As for the Hodgson article, it could be edited down in a number of ways to maybe 2/3 the size. But the "however" is irrelevant, perhaps a misunderstanding of an unrelated "however" in the previous paragraph, or even WP:OR to make it look like Wilby lied about why he apologized, which the author does not say. Paragraph in question being:

Peter Wilby, the editor of New Statesman, subsequently apologised for the cover, stating that while the magazine remained opposed to the policies of Israel, ‘’"We (or more precisely, I) got it wrong," and that’‘ the cover "used images and words in such a way as to create unwittingly the impression that the New Statesman was following an anti-Semitic tradition that sees the Jews as a conspiracy piercing the heart of the nation." Jessica Hodgson of The Guardian ‘’however’‘ wrote that "The grovelling editorial follows a protest last week by a group of activists calling themselves Action Against Anti-Semitism, who marched into the magazine's offices demanding it print an apology. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about alleged lobbies on Israel in the U.K. The New Statesman famously alleged there was a "Zionist lobby" and a "Kosher conspiracy" in the U.K., using a controversial image. Reliable sources argued it was antisemitic. Why on earth are you attempting to suppress that view? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• First, I changed the title of the cover to the actual cover as shown at graphic to right. I assume you can't possibly have a problem with that?
• Second, you must agree that in an article about lobbying that the most important thing in the paragraph is that this complaint was brought to an all-party body and that should go first. In fact material on the reaction to her statement would be interesting. Please reply on that point.
• Third, Mortimer and the apology do illustrate pro-Israel lobbying of the media, and on that grounds might not be WP:undue. But I do think at times some people get confused about what Wikipedia is, i.e., Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of every detail of every antisemitic or anti-Arab or anti-Irish or anti-Armenian or ant-Han or anti-Cypriot, etc. accidentally or purposefully bigoted word or deed that have ever occurred in history. CarolMooreDC (talk)

The criticism that the article was antisemitic was not a minor point; the rest of your points seem to have no relation to your edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

everything from the New Statesman paragraph on is nothing more than unencylopedic left wing anti-Israel talking points and should be rewritten to comply with NPOV or deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Replacement Ref'd Info, New Info

OK. I replaced some unsourced with sourced material and some new information. It would be helpful if rather than discussing "inflaming me" and "going large" on me on Jayjg and Smerus talk page, you guys could constructively discuss the article here -as I invited Smerus to do yesterday - and not just revert away. Added some more of the new stuff I have, which makes it clear that a re-organization per the above is necessary, so comments welcome on that structure, which builds on the original structure. Still working on Friend of Israel info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had to remove most of it, since it was original research that had little, if anything to do with the topic of this article. None of the sources mentioned "lobbying on Israel". Also, you again linked to the website of Holocaust denier David Irving. Don't do it a third time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• What was unsourced?
• Why didn't you complain for a month about two long unsourced paragraphs on lobbying and history of Israel lobbying, but as soon as they get sources you claim WP:OR.
• Note that some sources you deleted did use the word lobbying so I guess I'll have to go back and quote those sentences, won't I?
• I didn't review my sources from work I did three weeks ago and failed to notice that I had another reprint of an article from David Irving's site, which I didn't notice was his site first couple times. [http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/docs/Interpal_sues_BoD.html Palestinian charity sues British Jewry over terror slur] reprinted from Haaretz, March 25, 2004. However, what's with the threat of a "third time?" Please detail what your threat entails in case he's got some other site that I goof up on. I wouldn't bother to bring this issue to WP:RS as a reprint from a questionable site (which the noticeboard seems to be fairly tolerant of), because I do think it is possible there is some distortion in the reprint, FYI. However, I'm pretty sure there were other sources for same article.
• And haven't even finished my research yet. Just another example of extremely uncooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "what was unsourced"? As for the rest of your comment, it's easy enough for you to tell if you're linking to Irving's site; don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your edit summary when you removed everything said: "removing original reserach that has nothing to do with Lobbying on Israel, and removing unsourced materials. Also, don't source to Holocaust denier's websites.)" However, I didn't realize that you had removed the original unsourced material, though you waited til I replaced them with sourced info, which seems strange.
• Don't assume because you are hip to every alleged and real scoundrel on issues of concern to you, that everyone is. I might not have remembered who David Irving was if I had noticed his name connected to the page; when you complained about it the first time I did read some of his wikipedia article which reminded me/informed me in more detail about him. (Of course, knowing how biased so many wiki articles are, who knows how POV the article is.) But I'll assume he's definitely stepped over the line that I personally consider to be past criticism and into suspicious and even bigoted behavior.
• Anyway, you are refusing to even tell me what grounds you have for what complaint you are threatening to make and it would be polite to specifically inform me just so I'll understand in wikipedia terms what punishment bringing up bad sources accidentally can get you; I mean there are a lot of partisan-criticized sites on Israel-Palestine topic that might look like their reprints will be OK. Guess when in doubt run to WP:RS/N! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted a big deletion by Jayjg (talk · contribs). That seemed excessive. It's a bit much to characterize anything about the Balfour Declaration period as "original research"; it's a major historical event, with many sources. There's an ongoing problem with this editor claiming "original research" for things he doesn't like. Jayjg (talk · contribs) has been up before ArbCom twice for similar behavior, in 2006 and 2007. For a while, he seemed to have reformed, but maybe it's time for his annual arbitration. --John Nagle (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Re; Jayjg's past problems, good to post links for others to review. I found 2005 arbitration which bookmarked at some point, but couldn't find 2007 arbitration or figure out where Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration might keep a log.
• Also found more recent one Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Administrators_admonished where he was admonished as an administrator for possibly misuing powers; which is what I was worried about with his implied threats above.
• My intentions were/are to put up a sandbox with my version of article when finish researching (including a better link than Mr. I's web page for reprints) and then go to Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard (including with the link to very problematic Smerus comments about me on Jayjg's page to complain about uncooperative editing). But if you know a better route, do tell.
• I'm not saying what I put in is perfect, but one expects cooperative attempts to improve it, not wholesale deletion.
• Meanwhile I'm researching the following articles and see how they deal with the issue and what would happen if I left a Jayjg-Smerus-type argument for not using these titles - maybe they'll supply a good counter-argument. :-) China Lobby, Energy Lobby, Pharmaceutical lobby, Cuban-American lobby, Tobacco lobby. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine the sources used:

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lobbying - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom.
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82529.stm - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom.
3. https://zionist.org.uk/index.php?id=40 - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
4. http://www.zionism-israel.com/Balfour_Declaration_1917.htm - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
5. http://zionism-israel.com - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
6. Harry Defries, Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews 1900-1950, Routledge, 2001, 50-51, ISBN 0714652210. - Referenced pages don't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. They don't even mention the word "lobbying".
7. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011963 - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
8. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
9. http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-7480/90th-anniversary-of-balfour-declaration/ - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
10. http://www.boardofdeputies.org.uk/page.php/About_us/2/1/1 - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
11. http://www.boardofdeputies.org.uk/page.php/Structure/108/2/1 - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
12. http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/docs/Interpal_sues_BoD.html - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying". Also, a link to the website of a convicted Holocaust denier.
13. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1720137,00.html - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".
14. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2237707.ece - Doesn't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom. Doesn't even mention the word "lobbying".

I remind editors yet again of WP:SYNTH:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Regarding the rest of your comments, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

backdent<--

• Well, the good news is I did the right search this time and found a better source for the Interpal story. Dominic Casciani , Islamic charity cleared of Hamas link, bbc, September 24, 2003. Just found this one too with slightly different search where BOD apologizes: Dominic Casciani, Top Jewish group 'terror' apology, BBC, December 29, 2005.
• Expecting Jayjg to come back with yet another wholesale deletion. I'll look at refs for word lobby since I know some did mention it. I'm quite sure that WP:SYN in this case mostly equals WP:IDONTLIKEIT as John said. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, none of the citations mentioned the topic of the article, as outlined above. Please make more civil comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, the topic is "lobbying on Israel." All that has to be in the article is actions that are those defined commonly as lobbying and the word Israel. (See clarification in next posting after WP:RS establish basic topic.) So I reject your premise the word "lobby" (or "Israel Lobby") must be used as long as WP:RS describe influencing legislators as clear goal of actions. And I reject it for the real topic of the article "Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom." I should have just gone to whoever as soon as the name was changed without announcement, but have been waiting to get the article more together. Also, I'll strike the sentence in order not to drag another individual into the debate. Just be consistent and I'll strike it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You can "reject" my premise all you want, but you can't ignore WP:SYNTH. What does the history of the Board of Deputies have to do with such lobbying? What does a threatened lawsuit by a Palestinian group have to do with "lobbying on Israel"? According to whom is this material relevant to the topic of "lobbying on Israel"? Your opinion that these sources are on topic is both inaccurate and irrelevant; find sources that actually explicitly refer to the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I was tired last night and should have qualified that what I mean is that once it is established reliable sources say there is an Israel lobby and lobbying about/on/in regards to etc. Israel, one doesn't necessarily have to have those exact phrases in every article used as a reference and every sentence quoted; some leeway can be allowed in summarizing WP:RS about individuals and groups who lobby on behest of Israel, if you have cooperative editors helping each other out.

Second, I appreciate that Jayjg actually specifically addressed a few issues to motivate me to beef up the writing and not just complain about the bad process of his deleting with no explanation at all.

Finally, if BofDeps has a 100+ year old legislative group, it must be doing some lobbying. Will have to find out better sources describing some of their activity as trying to influence legislators and legislation and parliamentary oversight of the implementation of legislation (ie like Interpal). On BofDeps badmouthing Interpal, let's see if WP:RS identify that was somehow related to their working to get the govt to ban the group under current or through new legislation, as has been claimed by somewhat less WP:RS sources. That's called lobbying. So while my first draft might have been off, that doesn't mean it's not going in the right direction. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH again. The sources used in this article must refer to lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom, and the only way we will know they actually refer to such lobbying is if they use the words "lobbying" and "Israel", and say that that's what people/groups have been doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Or Jewish lobby, per Davies paragraph?? We'll test that out as we go with other examples. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material again

Carol, you have again added a series of sources, objected to above, that don't mention the topic of this article, Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom - which, in fact, don't even mention lobbying. Please don't add them again. The only source which did mention lobbying was http://www.zionism-israel.com/Balfour_Declaration_1917.htm , a website which has been objected to as not reliable by a number of editors. If the website is to be considered reliable, then there is quite a bit of information on there that I am sure you would object to including. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you claimed the sources were WP:original research and did not contain the word lobby so I quoted their uses of lobby, as well as new ones, using "lobby." But again you delete them claiming only "remove material that is not on the topic of this article. Again, most sources here do not mention the topic of this article, *Lobbing on Israel*)".

Is there a semantic issue here? Articles must mention phrase "lobbying on Israel" or Israel lobby can only be called Zionist or Jewish lobby in some unexplained circumstances, not others? Also note that there is still going to be a request that an administrator put this back to the original title Israel lobby in the United Kingdom since obviously that IS the topic of the article.

The only sources that do not directly mention lobbying are there for transitional purposes since this is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in WP:wikilawyering. (Do you want to claim that "narrow base...from which Zionists struggled" is WP:OR? Please see: WP:These_are_not_original_research which explicitly says it is meant to deal with wikilawyering and then we can discuss it.)

As for zionism-israel.com, as with many sources, there are areas where it I might consider it more credible than others, depending on what other sources say. I don't see my other sources conflicting with it.

• Removed section 1 (Important context not removed by editor without italics):

British Journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft writes that perhaps the “first lobbyist on behalf of the land of Israel” was Theodor Herzl who, after publishing his book The Jewish State in 1896, and organizing the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, met in person British Cabinet ministers and other European officials.

According to the Zionism & Israel Information Center Russian Zionist Chaim Weizmann moved to England in 1904 and met Arthur James Balfour, a British Lord, whom he convinced that Palestine should be the Jewish national home. The “British Zionist movement began actively lobbying the British government.” The British Palestine Committee in Manchester also “lobbied for the mandate and Jewish rights in Palestine.” The Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland states it was the “narrow base” from which [Weizmann] and other British Zionists struggled for a Jewish State. On November 2, 1917 Lord Balfour sent a declaration to the Zionist Federation stating the British Cabinet’s support for support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” This led to the British Mandate of Palestine ratified by the League of Nations after World War I.

In the 1930s, Britain abandoned its Zionist sympathies "which had been secured by the Zionist lobby” because of fears of coming war with Nazi Germany. In 1939 Britain limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, thereby becoming "the principal enemy." In 1942 Zionists shifted their focus to influencing the United States through use of the "Zionist vote."

• Removed section 2: Board of Deputies Section - Formed in 1760, the Board of Deputies of British Jews describes itself as the democratically elected national representative of the British Jewish Community. During the 19th century the Board of Deputies “functioned, with some success, as a lobby in Parliament” protecting religious right of Jews in public service. For many years, the Board of Deputies was the “institutional stronghold of the anti-Zionist camp,” forming with the anti-Zionist Anglo-Jewish Association a committee “to lobby the government on matters concerning persecuted Jews abroad.” The Board of Deputies ended its efforts after the committee’s executive secretary Lucien Wolf published a controversial manifesto in The Times asserting Zionism was “stamping Jews as strangers in their own lands.”

In late 2007 Independent Jewish Voices was established by a number of high profile British Jews who stated "The broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole.” Hasan Suroor in an article “British Jews take on the Israeli lobby’” wrote that they challenged Israel and “its proxy institutions abroad” to represent all Jews, especially on the Palestinian issue, and thereby “reclaim the great Jewish intellectual tradition from Israeli propagandists and lobbyists.” Suroor wrote the group referred especially to the Jewish Board of Deputies, as did other reporters. In a 2008 Jerusalem Post article Board of Deputies president Henry Grunwald described, among other activities, the “robust political involvement” of British Jews, the importance of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism and the British government’s response, and firm alliances built [with] Hindu, Sikh and Christian groups with whom British Jews “lobby government on matters of joint concern.”

CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, are there for transitional purposes = original research. The bulk of the sources do not mention lobbying. For example, in the first paragraph the only source that mentioned "lobbying" was the zionism-israel one, which some have argued is not reliable. In fact, I recall not too long ago that CJCurrie went through all of Wikipedia removing any links to it. In the second paragraph the only source to mention "Lobbying on Israel" was an overtly political opinion piece by Hasan Suroor, which used the phrase "Israel lobby" in the headline, and then referred to a "Jewish lobby" several times in the article. Please review WP:UNDUE. Regarding the Endelman source, I don't think I should have to remind you, Carol, that a "Jewish lobby" and an "Israel lobby" are not the same thing, and that lobbying the government about persecuted Jews abroad is not the same as Lobbying on Israel. And finally, please stop providing links to essays, which are neither policies nor guidelines, and particularly not to ones that don't even support the points you are making. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removed section 1: I did search of wikipedia and zionism-israel.com still used a lot; will bring to reliable resources noticeboard. While Balfour/mandate material could be squeezed into one sentence, it's obviously relevant to the sentence you DID leave in about the British ending Jewish immigration to Palestine. What encyclopedia guts everything relevant between 1897 and 1939?? No neutral editor could object to at least a one sentence transition!
• Removed section 2: Has three mentions of word "lobby," two specifically re: Israel/Zionism. (First one is establish Board of Deputies has a history of lobbying.) Obviously a tighter one sentence summary could make the same points. Re: Suroor, I quote his phrase on "Israeli propagandists and lobbyists." However "Jewish lobby" is now used three times in the article plus a source's article title - why haven't you removed those?? In your view, if Chris Davies mentioned only "Jewish Lobby" obviously his mention doesn't belong in this article. The Jewish Board of Deputies is the biggest alliance of Jews and obviously if it is shown it engages in Israel lobbying, it means there is an Israel Lobby in Britain, supporting the original title of this article "changed without consultation against wikipedia policies." It is only a matter of time before sources are found or are produced that explicitly make that point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding section 1, if you want to find transitional material, you need to look for sources that discuss them in the context of this article; that is, Lobbying on Israel in the UK. Regarding the second section, as I pointed out, it's not enough to mention lobbying, as there is all kinds of lobbying on all kinds of topics. Instead, it must mention lobbying on this topic, Lobbying on Israel in the U.K. Regarding Suroor, as I pointed out, it does mention the topic in the article headline, but not in the body of the article. In any event, it's an overtly political opinion piece by Hasan Suroor, whose relevance to the topic is not apparent. He seems to write opinions pieces in The Hindu; can you tell me more about him? Regardless, it's an awfully thin thread on which to build a paragraph. As for the other sources that just talk about a "Jewish lobby", in the case of Davies I believe he was censured for using the term "Jewish lobby" rather than "Israel lobby" or "Zionist lobby", is that correct? What are the other sources that mention "Jewish lobby"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Per my edit summary, there is NO consensus to change the title of this article, only a change made without consultation from Israel lobby in UK to Lobbying on Israel in UK. Four editors are against and only two are for it. Commenting on that fact was not rude; calling it so isn't civil. Just because we haven't called yet for moving it back to original title doesn't mean it is going to stay with this one.
2. Therefore no one has to jump through the "Lobbying on Israel in UK" nomenclature hoop which you keep stating. If it mentions lobbying related to or for Israel (including its creation) it's relevant.
3. Suroor is more of an opinion piece, but there are lots more on IndepJewishVoice I haven't even looked at; nevertheless he's good back up to others.
4. If you are against Jewish Lobby being used, search and delete all references at least until, as with Jewish lobby, a source saying they are interchangeable comes up. If you accept it being used in Davies, it remains relevant elsewhere.
5. The information will get in there from WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what you're talking about: who said your commenting on the article move was rude? If you're referring to my most recent edit summary, I was referring to John Nagle's rude comment in his blind reversion of my edits, not to you. As for the article title, it has to be NPOV and match the article contents. This article title does, your suggested article title does not.
2. The issue would remain regardless of the title; sources on "Lobbying on Israel in the U.K." would have to actually discuss, and explicitly mention, the topic of "Lobbying on Israel in the U.K." Sources on "The Israel lobby in the U.K." would have to actually discuss, and explicitly mention, the topic of "The Israel Lobby in the U.K." The sources above do neither.
3. Since Suroor is the only source discussing the topic, and even then he discusses the "Jewish lobby", how can he be a "back up to others"? And, given the issues I've raised, what exactly makes him "good"?
4. Perhaps you can assist; you mentioned three sources. Which are they?
5. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you trying to fit the article to your own personal views, and searching for sources that will do that? Or are you trying to find reliable sources on the topic, and simply presenting what they say, regardless of what that is? So far your comments indicate the former, but in fact you should be attempting the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR on adding your own views or opinions to an article

Smerus, please read WP:Original research. Personal comments about what is NOT in an article and what is not "proved" by an article is Original Research. Please delete it yourself once you understand the policy. Signing comment made couple weeks ago... CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

More problems with edits

You made this comment in an edit where it didn't make any sense. Carolemooredc is consistently acting in bad faith by seeking to remove relevant information that doesn't square with her own viewpoint. (TW)) Be clear on what you mean so we can discuss and resolve the issue. I'm trying to talk to you here, Smerus, but you ignore me, and you just delete comments I leave on your talk page as "unsolicited." You force me to make changes without discussion and then you say it's in bad faith. That is not very cooperative editing. (Not to mention your comments about "going large" on me at Jayjg's web page linked above.) I feel I need outside help on this issue alone.

• Several of these comments will lead into suggestions for changing POV category headings:
  • Janine Roberts Palestine Chronicle article should be under the new Journalists section. I would have added it there in first place but there wasn't an appropriate category.
  • Dave Rich says: British politics lacks anything approaching the American system of openly declared political lobbies

However, the BBC article on "Lobbying" states: Many decisions made in the Houses of Parliament are made as a direct result of lobbying - the influencing of members' votes either by parliamentary colleagues, constituents or outside pressure groups. Lobbying takes its name from the lobbies or hallways of Parliament where MPs and peers gather before and after debates in the Commons and Lords chambers. Traditionally, people wishing to influence the opinions of MPs or peers have frequented the lobbies seeking to persuade members of the validity of a particular viewpoint. Nowadays, the term lobbying often refers more specifically to the work of private companies known as lobbyists which are employed by organisations to represent their views to Parliament in a variety of ways - by arranging meetings, organising protests or providing briefing material.

It is POV to leave in Rich's view and not include the BBC's view.

• Under Debate on nature and influence of Israel lobbying the categories are too specific and POV, forcing people to create new sections if something doesn't quite fit therefore:
  • New Statesmen section should be under broader Journalists; more can be found
  • "Comparison of Israel lobbying in UK and US" should be "Description of lobbying in the UK" and include BBC opinion and come first
  • "Opinions expressed by Liberal Democrat Party politicians" should be "Politicians' opinions" and be the second section, since it's related to lobbying. And I have at least one, maybe two more there.
  • "Allegations of a formal lobby by Muslim and pro-Palestinian organizations in the UK" creates impression these comments inherently biased, without allowing people to judge on a case by case basis. And it makes it difficult to enter miscellaneous NON-Muslim/Palestine comments. NPOV section title would be something like "Other opinions" and be last and include Oxford Union Debate.
• Second paragraph and detailed comments vs. Tonge is WP:undue POV pushing. One sentence saying she was reprimanded is enough.
• BICOM story is not in historical order which should be 2000 created; 2005 AIPAC efforts; early 2008 and fall 2008. Putting AIPAC 2005 before Bicom created in 2000 just illogical.
• Smith Institute is not described as a charity in the article, or a think tank for that matter; that's in the Smith Institute article; please properly reference. I'll refrain from putting a FACT/DATE tag on for now.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warring/problems with edits

When you refuse to discuss issues on talk and then make reverts and edits that are so obviously POV and against policy, it's called edit warring. Rather than revert them all today I'll give you a couple days to respond. If you continue this hostile form of editing, with no effort to consense on talk, I guess I'll have to seek help from the appropriate noticeboard neutral third party editors as I an others are trying to get into the habit of per WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Again it would be nice if you explain or even take back your message about inflaming me and going large on me. Here are the problems with your most recent edits/reverts:

• You started the section called "Debate on nature and influence of Israel lobbying" but when you could find only one source that agreed with you that there hardly is a lobby, you a) moved it up to another section to put a POV slant on that section and b) deleted a factual correction of that sources statement that "British politics lacks anything approaching the American system of openly declared political lobbies; a similar, AIPAC-style operation in Westminster would not just influence policy, it would also subvert fundamental democratic mechanisms." i.e,. you deleted the far less POV source the BCC Lobbying article which describes a very active British lobbying system.
• You move three journalists comments out of the neutral "Journalistic debate" and put them under "Allegations by anti-Israel writers and sources" which is just imposing your POV on the article with the misleading edit summary that you are "cleaning up a mess"! And you continue to remove the name of the award winning journalist who wrote one of the articles without explanation! Also re-inserting inside her referenced material, for I believe the second time, your POV/WP:OR comment "No evidence is supplied in the article for these assertions." I will be adding more from her and her name in the next few days. Please do not remove it again.

I've found better sources on Tam D. than those the other editor put in. And have more WP:RS to put in but haven't gotten around to yet. I do have holiday and preparations and family celebrations to attend to and wiki editing is done in short breaks around that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Undid the last batch of edits by Jayjg (talk · contribs). That was a bit much. Some of them might be good, but all those edits in one batch was really POV pushing. --John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I put back the ones I thought were good and have found a few misfiled articles that may contain more info. Note that I feel the need to make bunches of corrections at once to avoid possibility of 3RR, and sometimes by end of a long day of intermittent editing in between real life, edits can sometimes get a little shaky.

I don't want to spend a lot more time on this article, but this pushing the POV that there is no Israel Lobby in Britain is absurd. Note that the MOVE back to original title will probably result in discussion and, it may be my imagination, but it seems like in several situations like that lately there's been some tag teaming going on, shades of CAMERA promotions in the spring. (Good thing to discuss at WP:IPCOLL.) Just in case, that is why I'm trying to get the article as beefed up as possible for any neutral parties who might chance by. Also going to get third opinion on issues that may remain here. By the way, I have a feeling the Parliamentary group section could be tighter and include a news story or two, but haven't had enough time to read the sources or research anything. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

John, if you have issues with my edits, please address them individually and specifically on this Talk: page, rather than mass reverting with rude edit summaries. Carol, please stop promoting conspiracy theories regarding other editors. This issue has been raised in the past, please put an end to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions make it clear "Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom" is proper name for article

Better late than never I've recently discovered WP:Naming conventions and WP:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names which states: Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. And it makes it amply clear that Google can be used as a test:

• • Both "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" and "Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom" (minus wikipedia returns) only one or two returns and obviously neither can be used for researching the article.
  • "Israel Lobby" and "United Kingdom" (minus wikipedia returns) gives you 119,000 returns
  • "Lobbying on Israel" and "United Kingdom" (minus wikipedia returns) gives you zero returns (without United Kingdom you get about a dozen, and almost all are "lobbying on Israel's behalf")

Also see WP:Name#Controversial_names which clearly states: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.

Do I really have to go to WP:NPOV/Noticeboard about this? Can we consider the discussion on moving it back to Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom closed and ask an administrator to do it without starting a whole process?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, this article is on Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom, not on the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom; the latter, to the extent that it exists, is a sub-group of the former. Thus the article fully complies with all policies and guidelines. Your argument is circular; trying to restrict the article to discussing only groups which lobby in support of Israel, rather than including all groups who lobby on Israel, including those who lobby against it, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article WAS about "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" and those lobby groups until User:Smerus changed the name and focus against policy. You are supporting that violation of policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been no "violation of policy"; the guideline you are referring to is relevant only for common names such as "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church". It does not speak about names of articles on a complex topic like this; a topic, which quite frankly, is only intended as political propaganda anyway. The current name is the only NPOV one, since it's the only one that covers all sides of the issue under discussion. A move to the previous name would be a violation of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to move the article back. It was moved without consensus. Let's start that process. --John Nagle (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John for starting the Requested Move below. But I'm actually confused as to what is happening. Is some administrator going to come in and decide? I was waiting to see what happened in that case, but if it's some "consensus" situation - then there's no reason to delay some other things I was thinking about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, second reading of Requested moves page I figured it out - they need to format that stuff better: Requests are generally processed after five days, although backlogs of a few days develop occasionally. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". Well, my guess is there isn't going to be a consensus here to change TO the new name; but it seems wrong to leave it. I can think of some articles I'd like to just go in there and change their names and at least one person would support, but does that make it right?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Accordingly, as their was no discussion prior to the move, the article has been moved back to the previous name. JPG-GR (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A move back to "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" has been requested. Discuss here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is to undo this move: 09:58, 3 December 2008 Smerus (talk · contribs) moved "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" to "Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom" ‎ (nothing in the article, or any of the neutral sources qouted, suggests that there is a de facto Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. The articles is about lobbying on Israel rather than some shadowy 'Israel lobby'. I am therefore making this move which ref...[6] --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Move back. The decision to move the page was made without consultion nor consensus. Moreover, the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is attested to in various publications and is common parlance. For instance see:

• http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140009
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/mar/11/pressandpublishing.middleeastthemedia
• http://www.thejc.com/node/5456

Colombo Man (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Move back. The unannounced move of a ten month old article title on December 3, 2008 was against WP:move and WP:naming conflict policy. Additionally my comments directly above on Naming Conventions, including in conflictual situations make it clear that "Israel Lobby" in the "United Kingdom" is the most common name that people would look for and is used extensively by WP:RS in relation to the United Kingdom, including WP:RS in this article. However, the "Lobbying on Israel" phrase is not used at all in relation to the "United Kingdom." Additionally there already is a separate article on Israel lobby in the United States. "Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom" could include all sorts of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and other reactions to the activities of such a lobby. However, "Palestine lobby in the United Kingdom," which is a different topic, should have its own article, if someone wants to start it, and not be subsumed under "Lobbying on Israel." It's just illogical to argue it should be subsumed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Carol, using your naming suggestions, into what article would we put material about organizations that lobby, for example, to reduce British support for Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Same place they get should be put regarding Israel lobby in the United States - "Opposition to Israel lobbying" section. Where would it be in your structure? Have those who changed the title without discussing it on talk ever explained the strucutre they propose for the unweildy mass of conflicting viewpoints and issues this un-proposed, un-discussed and overly general title would open? (Some of which objections were raised immediately after the surprise name change.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • But Carol, lobbying to reduce support for Israel is not the same as "opposition to Israel lobbying". Under the current structure, one doesn't have to take sides, or make value judgements; if a group lobbies on Israel, then it and its activities are described, rather than an "unwieldy mass of conflicting viewpoints and issues", which is the typical result of trying to artificially narrow the scope of a topic in order to promote a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Do not move. Previous arbitrarily restricted topic naming was a violation of WP:NPOV. Current name allows for a full discussion of the topic of Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom, rather than artificially restricting the topic to specific groups that lobby on Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Do not move. I agree with comments of Jayjg . I am concerned that recent edits of this article have had the effect of turning it into an assemblage of quotes from a number of secondary sources, giving the whole an NNPOV aspect, and devoting the article to current or near-current events and giving a non-neutral high exposure to pressure groups with a vested interest in claiming the existence or influence of a putative 'Israel lobby', comparable with the de facto Israel lobby in the US. At the same time other material relating to the article topic, (including material placing UK lobbying on Israel in a historic context going back to the early 20th century and the time of the Balfour declaration) was deleted. Changing the title to 'Israel lobby in the United Kingdom' is to give the article a title which in itself is contentious and non-neutral, since the assertion of the existence of an 'Israel lobby' as an entity is highly value-laden; as some of the materials remaining in the article (and some of the materials excised by the promoters of the name-change) indicate. I hope we can establish here a genuinely neutral survey of political lobbying in the UK relating to Israel, without having to throw in irrelevancies and reports of unsubstantiated allegations (on either side of this clearly emotive topic). --Smerus (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure on process for commenting on other's opinions, but I would like to point out per Smerus and CasualObserver's comments that I have repeatedly requested in last couple talk sections above and on Smerus' user page that Smerus in particular discuss the specific issues he has with various issues so we could come to a more consensus view on WP:OR, NPOV, etc., but he refused to so and merely continued deleting material with insufficiently clear or helpful edit summaries. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

now that's what I would call a non-NPOV comment!  :-} Please try to remember WP:AGF. Happy New Year. --Smerus (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When you are in this sort of debate on process, someone refusing to discuss issues and removing a request to discuss them from their talk page as "unsolicited contributions" becomes relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to this section or Talk: page, it doesn't. If you have concerns, create a behavioral RFC on Smerus. Discuss article content (and naming) here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Wikipedia:Move_request that says that. Please link to any policy page/section saying so. It makes sense if it is against policy to make a controversial name change without discussing it on a talk page, then it's relevant if someone who supports such change refuses to discuss all the reverts s/he makes of material an editor makes with open intent to beef the article before trying to get the name changed back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, this is a discussion about moving the article to a new name, not an RFC on Smerus's behavior. Please focus on the subject of this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Move Back Currently ambivalent, but leaning toward move back. I will side with either if the subject is discussed fully and fairly (NPOV). Currently, it is not. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Vote change based on Historical record ref'd to Zionist site in section immediately below. Previous move also was made without sufficient/any discussion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as is; a balanced title should result in a balanced article. An unbalanced name can only result in (and has resulted in) an unbalanced article. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me there are adequate WP:RS to support having an "Israel Lobby in UK" and "Arab/Palestine/Muslim lobby in UK" sections. Of course, they might get so big that it would justify having an Israel lobby in UK and Arab Lobby in UK article and this would just be sort of a disambiguation page... CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of Wikipedia:Name#Controversial_names which states: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." Since you are commenting here for first time it would be helpful to know if you support a name change clearly against wikipedia policy? I doubt this can come to consensus so it probably will be first thing I take to Palestine-Israel articles Arbitration enforcement since there have been a number of issues involved with this move, not the least of which is that the article clearly IS about the "Israel Lobby in UK." Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Move back. "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom" is a much more neutral name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is applicable. The original move does not have consensus, so it should be moved back. Otherwise, the first mover gains an unfair advantage in controversial moves. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as is; I agree with jayjg, (plus I don't really like Kimvdlinde).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with one person while saying you dislike another person is not an enlightening argument. Could you elaborate? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Move back per WP:BRD. Supporters of this move should submit a proper request and argument for the move via WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zionism-Israel.com as WP:RS source

I brought this deletion of history of Israel lobbying in UK material sourced to Zionism-Israel.com to WP:RSN Noticeboard to get other perspectives. People were somewhat skeptical and making other suggestions, given my failure to notice and note: 70 articles using it as a WP:RS at the time I stoppred counting, in articles from every imaginable perspective. Therefore I don't think there is a case for deleting information which is referenced from Zionism-Israel.com unless it clearly conflicts with reliable sources that say something different. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source, since widely used, should be acceptable and reliable when describing an element of itself. I’ve used the ref myself, at least for self-education. I haven’t searched in detail for ‘United Kingdom’, but have seen lobbying-type activities described quite succinctly by country on a (historic) year by year basis at either of these[7] [8]. They similarly are quite reliable. I do not know if they have kept their international perspective in recent times. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I personally am content with the historical info in there now, if it doesn't get deleted. But your tip did lead indirectly to a good quote from a journalist I'm putting in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:NewStatesmancover.jpg

The image File:NewStatesmancover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New Proposed Section: Accusations of antisemitism as lobbying ploy

Obviously there has been ambivalence about the sections where people are accused of antisemitism; some because they want to emphasize antisemitism every chance they get; others because they hope readers will see these charges of antisemitism are am Israel lobby technique. Well, I think I may have put together enough WP:RS to say that charges of antisemitism in UK are in fact a "lobbying" technique with lots of examples of how it's used by UK lobby groups and that the existing sections would fit in that section. It might take a few days for me to get a draft together, but if you have some relevant refs, insert them below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing lead

See WP:lead. I put up what I think is the simplest, most accurate and "unambiguous" lead. It is obviously NOT true to say merely that the goal is merely better relations between Israel and the UK. There are lots of refs that can be used if necessary. This is not a matter that is controversial in the larger world of WP:RS. It's just controversial among the minority who refuse to admit there is an Israel Lobby in the UK, IMHO. And there are a couple of opinions questioning that and they can be stuck in their own little section.

RE: synonyms, I'm still trying to find the policy that says that common synonyms can be used in a lead. I'm pretty sure it's in WP:name and will cite it here when find. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a remarkably close example in Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content, if not as explicit as I remember it:

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ...

CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring article

1. A lot of things have been bunched under debate which really are other categories including activities/campaigns, journalistic exposes on individual groups, general criticism, etc.
2. Since groups like BICOM and Board of Deputies (more refs forthcoming) do per WP:RS use media as part of their lobbying of politicians, their media campaigns are relevant.
3. Activities of groups could be under each group's section. But since often these groups join up in different configurations to work on projects, I think we need a separate Activities or Campaigns section. (Which could/should include attacks on critics of Israel and efforts to get govt to act against them--and I have a bunch of sources on that that have not been put in the article, not to mention those already in the New Statesmen and politicians sections).

• History
• Active groups (should include some journalistic info now under current debate section)
  • Political party groups
  • Registered Parliamentary Groups
  • BICOM
  • Board of Deputies
• Activities or campaigns (should include individual group and joint/parallel group efforts)
  • To influence public and politicians
  • To influence government actions against critics of Israel and Israel lobby (including on politicians, writers, Arab organizations, etc. using government means, etc.)
  • Other sections as relevant
• Debate on the nature and influence of Israel lobbying
  • New Statesman article
  • David Rich opinion
  • Oxford Union Debates
  • Other sections as relevant
• Criticism of lobby
  • Section as relevant

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MPACUK long quotation problem

RE:this paragraph in Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. While the article does have several groups and journalists that have passed muster with an editor as WP:RS, this admin insists on inserting the "rant" comment in italics which I argue is unencyclopedic, WP:UNDUE, has BLP violations and POV as an attempt to make the MPACUK look bad. (I wouldn't mind a short summary of the comments on antisemitism at the end of that which is new information in a more rational sounding manner.) Thoughts? Or should it go to NPOV or BLP noticeboard? Or further?

The British-based Muslim group Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK), insists there is a "British Israel Lobby", stating that "there are over 100 members of the Friends of Israel lobby in the Labour party alone. This gives them a very loud voice simply because they are active, each and everyone is giving and working for the good of their community.". A September 2006 article on its web site describing the three groups' web sites comments "We would like to apologise to all the Warmongers, Anti-Ceasefire camp, pro-war camp, anti-Islam camp, anti-Muslim camp, Zionists, Israel Supporters, terrorists, extremists, fascists, right-wingers, Neo-Cons, Tony Blair, well pretty much everyone who doesn't believe in the existence of the British Israel Lobby for exposing you for hijacking our countries [sic] foreign policy, which promotes hatred/war/injustice and who can forget the rejection of the ceasefire in Lebanon... Even A Blind Person Knows The Existence of The Israel Lobby, but what is stopping you in seeing the existence of the Israel Lobby? Fear of being called An Anti-Semitic? If you think now is worse give it a few years when everything and anything on the issue of Israel & Zionism will be anti-Semitic."

Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad links

Some of the internal links in this article don't go to the places they should. I've corrected a few, but problems remain - John Mendelsohn goes to an article about an American drummer (is John Mendelson meant, possibly?), and Simon McDonald goes to an article about a North Dakotan politician. Also, David Abrahams (Labour party donor) was redirected to 2007 Labour party donation scandal for BLP reasons, although I've kept the link in this article just in case of the (unlikely) possibility that it gets recreated. Robofish (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible RS

While looking into something called the 'London Zionist League', I ran across this source[9], which looks pretty reliable to me. I note this book is not currently listed as a reference or cited. It notes considerable lobbying activity as well as electoral revenge at the time related to the Labor govt's Passfield White Paper (on the pages I hit). It likely contains much more. For those searching for their own things, one might start here. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've run into a few more myself should report when I find where I filed them.

One of my hangups on this and other Israel Lobby articles (besides trying to keep my wikipedia habit down to an hour a day!) is trying to figure out how to integrate the various campaigns conducted by individual groups and groups in concert into the article. It's been holding back my finishing reorganizing this article. Which would, for one thing, make this a minor section instead of a minor one: "Debate on the nature and influence of Israel lobbying." CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

CO48, this group appears to pre-date the existence of the State of Israel by decades. Which sources describe it as an Israel lobby? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you missed the first sentence of the lede, which also includes Zionists, who were both pre- and post-state.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could respond by saying that the first sentence of this lede is not particularly relevant, as this article has suffered from serious WP:SYNTH and related WP:NOR problems since its inception. But instead I'll just note that Wikipedia article ledes are not reliable sources, and that you haven't answered the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zionism section needs more info

I don't have a problem with there being one if it has some useful content which this does not. It needs following:

• I think you could have a "christian zionist" section under "active groups" if you named a few leaders and groups. With all those refs, you must have some names.
• This sentence needs referencing, isn't very clear, poor spelling, and may be true of only some groups: The basic concept beingthe belief that the Jewish people are the saviour of Christians and the Messiah will only return once Israel is completely established and all the Jews 'return' their. I know some Christian Zionists think the goal is to expand Israel to certain borders. And isn't it pretty much written that when Jesus returns all the Jews who haven't converted will die?
  

More ref'd info please. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, you didn't answer my concerns but did make more changes. This is supposed to be cooperative enterprise and when you don't converse with others and leave concerns unaddressed it is a reason to delete relevant material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given no response I decide first thing to do was clean up Christian Zionism article. But will do quick check for info these groups as actual lobbies, which IS relevant to this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tag/Archiving

I can't remember who put it up why. If it stays in it's current form I personally don't think it is needed, where as when criticisms were lumped under debate I did. Also hearing no objections I intend to archive 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk)

article needs deletion at once

An Israel factor in 9-11, please will some person with a brain around here tell me the definition of anti-semitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.251.246 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Undid deletion by anon

Undid deletion by anon. [10]. Probably better to discuss that deletion first. This article has sort of settled down. --John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1162378505591
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612191226/http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=3403 to http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=3403

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)