Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/neologism

Is "Jewish lobby" a neologism?
I have been arguing for about a year now that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism, primarily because it is not found in any standard dictionary. Others have argued that a) since the phrase has been used as early as the 1970s, and b) since it is defined in Walter John Raymond's Dictionary of Politics it is not a neologism. In turn, I have pointed out that Raymond's work is at best a specialist dictionary (not a standard one), and is actually self-published (he apparently created the publishing house so he could publish this work). In addition, I have pointed out that Carol has insisted that the term "New antisemitism" is a neologism, even though, as User:ChrisO has pointed out, the term has been used for over 100 years. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought this "neologism" business had been handled conclusively on the talk page. You will find there that others have also argued (repeatedly) that c) Jay has provided no source describing "Jewish lobby" as a neologism, and he's been very clear elsewhere that reliable sources are required for this sort of classification; d) the fact that the phrase is not usually defined in dictionaries tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's a neologism, because dictionaries do include neologisms, not as an occasional exception but as a matter of course, but they usually don't include ordinary adjective-noun combinations; and e) like "gunlobby," "cotton shirt," and "doggy breath," "Jewish lobby"is a phrase made up of component words used according to their ordinary self-evident default definitions, so it's just, well, a little weird and counter-intuitive to call such a phrase a "neologism."  Actual neologistic phrases, like creative destruction, blue state, and irrational exuberance, usually involve one or both component words being used with some novel semantic or metaphorical spin.  And guess what?  Precisely because of this they're usually in the dictionary.  See creative destruction, blue state, and irrational exuberance.  And take another look at d) above.--G-Dett (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your statement not appearing in dictionaries, WP:NEO quite clearly includes phrases that "generally do not appear in any dictionary" - it's in the first sentence. Also, I don't think your dictionary argument really proves what you intend it to; if "Jewish lobby" is just an "ordinary adjective-noun combination", then we shouldn't have an encyclopedia article on it - I note that none of gun lobby, cotton shirt, or doggy breath have their own articles, the first being a re-direct to Gun politics. Finally regarding your argument that I've insisted elsewhere that reliable sources are required for this kind of claim, it's fairly circular, since it was a response to (and a result of) the discussions regarding this term - as pointed out, it was Carol herself who first introduced the Category to the New antisemitism article, following the lengthy discussion on the Jewish lobby article regarding whether or not it was a neologism. Whether Carol was indulging in WP:POINT or simply a glaring inconsistency is left up to the reader. In any event, the Category inclusion failed WP:CAT G7, as pointed out more than once. Since you've brought it up, though, I'm curious, G-Dett - if I understand your argument correctly, would you then conclude that "New antisemitism" is not a neologism? Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not been that involved in the repeated discussion of this in the talk archives, most recently Talk:Jewish_lobby/archive2. But will drag out old arguments if no one else does.
 * On my adding category:neologism to new antisemitism a while back: I did reply to Jayjg then as now: Also any opinion on wp:neo I expressed in another article does not have to be defended in this article, a wiki guideline I read somewhere. I stand by what has been said by various parties on this issue over time. [though it should be noted the first sentence (of new antisemitism) includes assertion new antisemitism refers to a "new form of antisemitism on the rise in the 21 century" - and last time i checked the 21st century only a full 7 years long... Someone fix misleading intro that makes article fit into category:neologism? Jayjg, why not correct that lead sentence so it doesn't mislead people?? Carol Moore 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Carol, please review ChrisO's research - the phrase "New antisemitism" has been in use for over 100 years. Now, in light of your edit regarding the phrase "New antisemitism", do you claim that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism? Please answer in your own words, rather than "standing by" what other unnamed and uncited individuals have said. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Jay, read my post again. I didn't say that because dictionaries regularly include neologisms it's "proof that when a dictionary does not include a phrase, it is therefore not a neologism." That's either a gross misreading or a strawman; in light of the clarity of my statement I'm guessing the latter. I said that "the fact that the phrase is not usually defined in dictionaries tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's a neologism," which of course is true for exactly the reasons I said. Please consider the difference between "proves" on the one hand, and "tells us absolutely nothing" on the other.

I'm aware of WP:NEO's problematic first sentence, and I note that it also specifies neologisms as "words and terms that have recently been [sic] coined," unlike "Jewish lobby" which is uh, rather old-school for a new coinage. Have you looked at Category:Neologisms? As you look it over, I think we'll have to admit the following: Finally, there's no circularity in pointing out your demand for reliable sources for these sorts of classifications. Whether you're indulging in WP:POINT or simply a glaring inconsistency, I really don't know. As for whether I think "new antisemitism" is a political neologism, I'm really not sure. It's a tough case because on the one hand the phrase itself has been used long ago, but on the other hand it has been given a very specific 21st-century definition, and the explosion of sources using it in the last six or seven years are not using it the way, say, a Commentary article used it forty years ago. But I don't know and I don't really care, and given the sensitivities I'd never press the case. The real question lurking behind these debates is whether Wikipedia should be endorsing (explicitly or implicitly) the legitimacy of controversial concepts, but the tool for handling that question is WP:NPOV, not WP:NEO. It is unfortunate that partisan editors tend to (a) mistakenly assume that describing a term as a "neologism" somehow weakens its credibility, and (b) use this classification as a tactical move within a larger strategic game of eliminating content they don't like. This happens on both "sides."--G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The more established of these are in standard dictionaries like the OED, while the very very new, novel, quirky offerings are not. Just in the B's, the Oxford English Dictionary includes "bling-bling," "Beetle bank," and "bicoastal."  It does not include blobject or Bush Derangement Syndrome.  If and when these latter get a firmer footing in our cultural discourse, they too will be in the dictionary.
 * 2) "Jewish lobby" is not a quirky or trendy or offbeat or witty phrase, nor is it a new one. It is not analogous to starter marriage, tanning addiction, Full Ginsburg, contagious shooting, or any of the other phrases in Category:Neologisms which are not in the dictionary.
 * 3) When we leaf through the OED and find "soccer mom," "feminazi," "disneyfication" and "heroin chic" defined but not "Jewish lobby," it's probably not because the latter's so new, so novel, so marginal, so cutting-edge, so sub-subculturish – in short, so neologistic that it's too neologistic for even the neologism-lovin' OED. Rather, it's probably because "Jewish lobby" constitutes an ordinary adjective-noun combo, like gun lobby and pharmaceutical lobby, and dictionaries don't usually hold the reader's hand and walk him through these things.
 * G-Dett, please read my post again - I had re-read your comment and revised my statement over an hour before you responded to it, so there's no need to go on about "strawmen" etc. Regarding "Jewish lobby", again, as I stated, if it's an "an ordinary adjective-noun combo" like cotton shirt or doggy breath then it shouldn't have an encyclopedia article. Regarding "pointing out circularity", again, Carol labelled "New antisemitism" as a response to the neologism argument in "Jewish lobby", and the sequence of events is rather crucial. Regarding whether or not Wikipedia should be endorsing the legitimacy of controversial concepts, it's a good one, and extends to all sorts of articles; in any event, I'm doing my best to ensure that policy is applied to this article, with varying degrees of success. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jay, I didn't notice you'd revised your original post. Thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of ordinary adjective-noun combos do in fact merit Wikipedia entries: Spaghetti and meatballs, Pharmaceutical company, and Corporate farming, for example, are all ordinary word combinations that aren't neologisms, aren't in the dictionary, but do belong in Wikipedia.  You seem to be forgetting that a dictionary is one thing, an encyclopedia another.


 * Regarding your squabble with Carol, I'm not sure "sequence" is important, unless your point (so to speak) is that "she started it." Bottom line is that if you think reliable sources are needed to class "new antisemitism" as a neologism, then you ought to be prepared to accept that standard here as well.--G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding phrases like Pharmaceutical company, they refer to well-understood and uncontroversial concepts. Legal entities actually refer to themselves as "Pharmaceutical companies". This, of course, is not the case with the phrase "Jewish lobby". Regarding the sequence of events, it is rather crucial, though (unsurprisingly) not for the reasons you posit; the claim was made that "Jewish lobby" was not a neologism because it dated back to the 70s; then Carol went and tagged "New antisemitism" as a neologism, a phrase that dated back over 100 years. That issue still remains unresolved. However, I removed the category from New antisemitism because it obviously failed WP:CAT G7, in that it was "not self-evident" that it is a neologism, quite a different argument, as the edit summary clearly shows. The standards for Category inclusion are not exactly the same as the standards for other parts of Wikipedia, as WP:CAT explains. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your statement that Jewish lobbies do not "of course" refer to themselves as "Jewish lobbies" is contradicted by a citation in the current JL article, where M&W state: "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents refer to America's Jewish Lobby". Jgui (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, please re-read what you have written. M&W do not say that AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents refer to themselves as "Jewish lobbies". Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, gee, they're "Jewish lobbies", referring to "Jewish lobbies" as "Jewish lobbies". That isn't good enough for you? Jgui (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In your view they're "Jewish lobbies". In any event, the context that they used the term is unclear, and they don't refer to themselves as "Jewish lobbies", contrary to your claim. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Neologism" is not a byword for "controversial concept," and saying that such-and-such term is a "neologism" is not a way of pushing back at the legitimacy of the concept it names – though these appear to be very common misconceptions in the partisan aisles of Wikipedia. The question of whether "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are still neologisms is a question for specialists on linguistic change, not specialists on climate change.  Meanwhile WP:NPOV (not the guideline WP:NEO) is the relevant policy for handling the presentation of controversial concepts.


 * I still don't find the sequence of your squabble with Carol of any interest; if you think we can't class "new antisemitism" as a neologism without reliable sources to that effect, but we can do just that with "Jewish lobby," then you need to explain why, without reference to Carol (content, not editors, etc).


 * I should note here that while you've quoted ChrisO on "new antisemitism" being mentioned over 100 years ago, you left out the part where Chris pointed out that the source used it with "a significantly different meaning." Naturally enough; it would be hard for a 1908 source to refer to "a new form of antisemitism on the rise in the 21 century emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel," which is what "new antisemitism" – a "controversial concept" if there ever was one – refers to.  Using this never-mind-the-meaning metric, by the way, the phrase Jewish lobby "dates back" at least to 1921.--G-Dett (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a "neologism" is not a byword for a "controversial concept", so we agree there. Regarding "content, not editors", it's a good principle, but then most of the objections raised on this page have, so far, had little to do with content, and, quite frankly, have mostly been personal attacks directed at me. Indeed, the mediator has had to chide other editors several times on this count. If one wants to raise issues of selective argumentation, a good place to start would be why you choose to continually confront me about issues that are much more relevant to others, while never confronting them. Think about that, please, but there's no need to respond - let's indeed move on to content issues.
 * You bring up a good point regarding phrases having "significantly different meanings", and it applies equally well to the phrase "Jewish lobby" as any. The problem is, the article is being approached as if the phrase "Jewish lobby" refers to one monolithic thing, something that indisputably exists, and is essentially a synonym for the "Israel lobby" - notwithstanding the fact that the sources used in the article itself dispute all of those assumptions. That is why, in fact, I have been making essentially two points, from day one: First, that the article should discuss the term itself, and second, that it should not simply be a clone of the Israel lobby in the United States article, about which a whole article already exists. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, regarding "content, not editors", it would be nice if you would acknowledge that all the editors who you accuse of making personal attacks against you have had their edits deleted by you for more than a year, and all the while it was based on this assertion of yours that JL is a neologism. Completely reverting out and deleting the good-faith and well-researched edits of other editors in a cavalier and hostile fashion does not make friends - even if you believe you are following WP policy (as you have stated you believe). THAT SAID, however, I think we are all trying very hard to have a constructive discussion here that moves beyond the past year of battles on the JL page, and I for one am willing to put aside the differences we have had on that page if you will.
 * Jayjg, your subsequent statement is amazing in its inaccuracy. In fact, this page has ALWAYS had a substantial section devoted to the "antisemitic" meaning of the term. As it is, the Antisemitic section dwarfs all other sections - and two months ago the "antisemitic" meaning was the ONLY meaning allowed in this article. And NO EDITOR has EVER tried to remove that section; we have only tried to include a section stating the fact that the term is not ALWAYS an antisemitic slur; it is also used (as G-Dett says) "as an ordinary adjective-noun combo, like gun lobby and pharmaceutical lobby". WE are the ones who have been trying to add this other meaning for the term, and not you. And as G-Dett further points out, the term been used since at least 1921, and there is no other source supporting your WP:OR assertion that the term is a "neologism". In addition to the fact that many WP editors have documented tens of uses of the term in this ordinary adjective-noun way in world-wide media, including pro-Zionist Israeli publications such as the Jerusalem Post. So once again, how can this possibly be an antisemitic "neologism" when it is clearly being used in another way, and is even defined as such in a specialist dictionary? Jgui (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, the issue of whether or not the term is a neologism has certainly not been settled; re-read WP:NEO for a Wikipedia definition of a neologism. As for your other remarks, the material I have been adding discusses the term, rather than simply using it. The fact that most sources that discuss the term seem to think it is antisemitic is not my responsibility, I'm just reporting what they say. As for your continued insistence that you can "document[] tens of uses of the term in this ordinary adjective-noun way", and specific instructions to other editors that It is not necessary to find sources "discussing" the term - sources "using" the term are good too, it seems that you still think that violating the original research policy is perfectly fine. I'm afraid that we won't be able to achieve much consensus if you continue to insist that we can violate the primary content policies. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, it would be nice if you would answer my argument, instead of simply stating that it is not settled because you say it isn't, and that I should read the WP:NEO page, which of course I have already read. You then address some unrelated and irrelevant side-issue. As far as that side-issue is concerned - do you think there is something wrong with my collecting uses of Jewish lobby on my user page, and is there something wrong with me asking another interested editor to contribute to it? Are you really serious in claiming that this is "violating the OR policy"?? And what possible relevance does that have to the issue of whether JL is a "neologism". Please try again, and this time try to answer our arguments, since that last response of your certainly does not. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, you haven't actually made any arguments that I can see. WP:NEO says "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It doesn't define what "recently coined" means, but the term "Jewish lobby" is certainly more recent than New antisemitism, and it does not appear in common dictionaries. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, so in the Jayjg encyclopedia, a "neologism" is any noun-adjective phrase that is used more recently than "new antisemitism" and that "doesn't appear in common dictionaries"? Let's see, the word "car" wasn't used before the 20th century and is newer than "antisemitism", so "black car", "white car", "green car", "fast car", "smelly car", etc. must all be "neologisms" in your encyclopedia? There's about 60,000 English language adjectives, so you'de better get busy writing those WP pages.
 * Jayjg, or maybe your definition is silly, and you should respond to the arguments that you keep avoiding. Here they are again, to give you another chance to respond (and please do not respond with irrelevant comments about a different phrase this time):
 * no source has been found supporting the WP:OR assertion that the term is a "neologism". To paraphrase Jayjg's assertion that this is required from another page: "Which reliable source says that 'Jewish lobby' is a "neologism"? Jayjg (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2008" HERE.
 * "Jewish lobby" is not a new phrase - it has been used since at least 1921.
 * the fact that the phrase is not usually defined in dictionaries tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's a neologism, because dictionaries don't include ordinary adjective-noun combinations.
 * there are hundreds of uses of the phrase "Jewish lobby" being used in this way as an ordinary adjective-noun phrase, including tens of such uses of the term in pro-Zionist Israeli publications such as the Jerusalem Post.
 * the phrase is defined in this way as an ordinary adjective-noun phrase in a specialst dictionary of politics.
 * "Jewish lobby" is a phrase made up of component words used according to their ordinary self-evident default definitions. Actual neologistic phrases, like creative destruction, blue state, and irrational exuberance, usually involve one or both component words being used with some novel semantic or metaphorical spin.
 * Jgui (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jgui, there's no need for phrases like "in the Jayjg encyclopedia" - please treat this process and other editors with respect. Regarding your "any noun-adjective phrase" argument, it obviously fails, because Wikipedia doesn't have articles on "any noun-adjective phrase". We don't, for example, have articles on black car, white car, smelly car etc., to use some of your own examples. Regarding your other claims,
 * 1) I don't see any evidence that it has been used since 1921, much less in its current meaning,
 * 2) it's not found in any regular dictionaries,
 * 3) we don't have articles on "ordinary adjective-noun phrases". Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, why should I take the time to put together a coherent argument, when you completely ignore it? To respond to your non-response:
 * 0) Do you know what irony is?
 * 1) G-Dett mentioned its use in 1921 - you seem to think this is important (I don't) - so if was used in 1921, then you'll agree it is not a neologism?
 * 2) Did you even read what I wrote - "the fact that the phrase is not usually defined in dictionaries tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's a neologism, because dictionaries don't include ordinary adjective-noun combinations."
 * 3) We have an article "Jewish lobby", and "Jewish lobby" is sometimes used as an "ordinary adjective-noun phrase". By policy WP articles include all of of a phrase's meanings - they should not be censored because of bogus arguments about "neologism" or anything else.
 * I have responded to all of your points, but you have responded to none of mine. So do you have any response to the arguments above, or are you ready to concede that the term is not a neologism based on the above argument? Jgui (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 0) Irrelevant.
 * 1) Do you think it was referring to AIPAC in 1921?
 * 2) Yes, I did. Your argument is irrelevant: as pointed out, "Jewish lobby" isn't an "ordinary adjective-noun combination" - if it were, then we wouldn't have an article on it, just like we don't have one on cotton shirt or doggy breath.
 * 3) What policy regarding "ordinary adjective-noun phrase" and "all of of a phrase's meanings" are you referring to?
 * 4) Your continually claiming that I haven't responded to your points doesn't make it true. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jgui, I should have been clearer – I don't think it's significant if the phrase "Jewish lobby" was used in 1921 if its meaning in that context wasn't obviously connected to its contemporary meaning. Jay has a different approach to the history of terms, which I've critiqued as sloppy and unrigorous, akin to folk etymology. The approach consists of using search engines to find any instance where a certain combination of words occurred and then presenting the results as instances of the "term being used," even if that combination of words had yet to acquire its current meaning and be classified as a term. This technique has been used to give a dubious historical patina to fad-phrases like "new antisemitism"; by invoking the 1921 use here, I was only demonstrating that this technique can be used – with equally specious results – for concepts and phrases to which Jay does not wish to impart a historical patina.

Jay, "Jewish lobby" is not a neologism, and flogging that dead horse is at this point disruptive. In an effort to expand dramatically an article about a controversial concept you endorse and to reduce drastically an article about a controversial concept you oppose, you have argued – on hazy, and shifting, and increasingly peculiar grounds – that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism but "new antisemitism" is not; your standard of evidence for one claim is reliable sources, while your standard for the other claim is merely an impressionistic application of the definition of a neologism found in WP:NEO. You even argued (preposterously) that "pallywood" (a silly slang word use by about ten blogger-bigots and no one else) is not a neologism, and that not only should the article about it not be limited to sources discussing the neologism itself, but that article should also cover " those events that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described."  Amazing. Enough of this – stop trying to use WP:NEO as an ideological weapon. WP:NPOV is the relevant policy, and if you apply it with a modicum of fairness, consistency, and common sense, you will find the atmosphere much more collegial and collaborative.--G-Dett (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, to begin with, I haven't "us[ed] search engines to find any instance where a certain combination of words occurred and then presenting the results as instances of the 'term being used,'" nor have I claimed that Pallywood is not a neologism - please don't make false claims about me. Nor have I ever argued that "'Jewish lobby' is a neologism but 'New antisemitism' is not" - my argument was about consistency, and about application of categories, which have specific rules, particularly WP:CAT G7.  Now, if I saw some good faith from you - that is, instead of only speaking up to attack me, you actually supported me when you agreed my points were valid (as in the continual policy-violating efforts to develop arguments based on simple uses of the term) - then I probably would be willing to make more compromises. As it is, I'm working on my own here, being tag-teamed by three editors who work in lockstep, and who still haven't conceded even the tiniest point regarding their original research. Now, I can see arguments for and against the term "Jewish lobby" being a neologism - on the one hand, it certainly isn't found in any regular dictionary, until recently it was used most widely by a small group, and the way it is used today doesn't match its oldest uses, so the current usage is fairly new. On the other hand, it has been used for several decades, and it is perhaps used more widely than it used to be. However, there's no point in agreeing to one side of the argument if there isn't some sort of reciprocal effort by others - that is, the point about it being a neologism wouldn't be as important if others would just agree to stop inserting original research based on uses of the term. Jayjg (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, you introduced your "neologism" argument on the Talk: page of Jewish lobby on March 23 of last year, when you claimed that the article–
 * "violates WP:NEO:"
 * To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term... An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).
 * "The sources used in this article must discuss the term 'Jewish lobby', not merely use it."
 * Three days earlier you argued that in "unambiguous cases," Pallywood should cover "those events that may be reasonably described as 'Pallywood' even if they have not verifiably been so described."


 * It is possible, I suppose, that you only became aware of WP:NEO between March 20 and March 23, but the chances of that seem slim. No, your position quite clearly was that WP:NEO did not apply to Pallywood.  You're now saying you didn't say that, or that the fact that you didn't believe WP:NEO applied didn't mean you didn't think "Pallywood" was a neologism, or something, but frankly your rhetoric here is becoming too subtle for me.  And when you go on to say –
 * "'Nor have I ever argued that ''Jewish lobby' is a neologism but 'New antisemitism' is not'"


 * – even as you continue to do exactly that, a sane person can only throw up her hands in despair. Your words mean what they mean, not only what you say they mean, and it is not incumbent upon anyone to sit and play Alice to your Humpty-Dumpty.


 * You keep saying I only speak up to oppose you, but you forget that I came to this page to join you in circumscribing the scope of this article, not on NEO grounds but on NPOV grounds, for the simple reason that "Jewish lobby" is a controversial phrase and – like "right to life," "strict constructionism," and "new antisemitism" – should neither be tacitly endorsed by Wikipedia, nor presented as if it were a neutral and universally accepted designation.--G-Dett (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My support for a particular proposal, with the clear caveat that it be within very strict limits and in unambiguous cases, is quite simply not the same as me "argu[ing] that Pallywood is not a neologism". As for your presence on this page, you originally supported my point about WP:NOR, and quite strongly too, when it suited you on the Pallywood article, but have been mute on the subject since then - and in particular, on this page, where it would support me. Again, I'm left arguing with three people who either don't understand WP:NOR or simply don't care about it, and another who apparently agrees with me on this point, but instead only feels it necessary to speak up if they think they can score some points on me. That is the kind of thing that makes the "atmosphere" un-collegial and un-collaborative, and indicate to me that I must argue as strong a line as possible, to ensure that the article isn't turned into a POV propaganda-fest. If I felt that there were actually someone to collaborate with, then that would be different, but so far it's just original research on one side and sniping on the other. Well, really, sniping on all sides. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To help me understand this issue a bit - why is this point being argued? What difference or change is this discussion supposed to have on the article?  What's the proposed outcome?  Shell    babelfish 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would have an impact on the scope of the article; an article about a neologism would only discuss the term itself. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And would therefore disallow any meaningful discussion and reader information concerning a very important issue including, what it does, how it does it, its history, etc. All these are easily RS'd. It was the facetious NEO argument that first brought me here.  Since then, the argument has lost all houmor that that descriptive term might imply.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

is :::That's correct. WP:NEO imposes somewhat tighter constraints on what can be written about a neologism than are required for an ordinary subject, and that's why this is an issue. --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI shell asked "why is this point being argued" - I took that as meaning what is the editing dynamic, since I thought the intellectual reason already had been discussed ad nauseum. But I guess the fact that editing wars result is the obvious dynamic. sorry. Dang my hard head. So let's all read WP:neo and start again. Carol Moore 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Actually I asked because arguing whether or not the term is a neologism doesn't seem to be something that everyone can agree on, whereas its possible that people might be able to agree on what information should be included in the article, though after seeing CasualObserver's comment, I'm not sure that's the case either. So, lets see if we can come at this from a different angle:


 * CasualObserver mentioned reliable sources that discuss the history and actions of the Jewish lobby, so maybe we can explore that. If there are reliable sources that go into that kind of detail, does it impact whether or not this term is a neologism?  What are the reliable sources and are they reliable in the way that the New York Times is reliable or is the reliability not as clear and something that would be necessary to discuss?  Are these large studies or articles entirely about the Jewish lobby or are these bits of statements from many sources?


 * Some other things to think about. Is it possible that Jewish lobby is another word for Israel lobby?  If not, is this a separate entity and do we have sources that reflect that?  Are there sources out that that might discuss both terms and compare or contrast the two?


 * Any other ideas on what we can do to resolve this impasse? Shell    babelfish 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of those issues have been discussed previously on the talk page, so there's background I'm not going to repeat.


 * At this point, just about every reference contains the exact phrase "Jewish lobby", following objections to any that don't, so that's not really a major issue any more.


 * The more fundamental disagreement is whether the argument is "about the term", in a dictionary definition sense, or "about the subject", in the sense of a political movement to be described. If the article is considered to be "about the term", this can and has been used as an argument for removing citations from reliable sources which are "about the subject". This is closely related to the "neologism" issue.


 * As for reliable sources on the neologism issue, the oldest one we have is "Jewish Lobby Loses a Big One", from Time Magazine, in 1978. (I think that was cited in the article but removed at some point.) Generally, WP:NEO is used to prevent Wikipedia being used to popularize a new word or phrase (this usually involves an AfD), or to encourage a more formal style in Wikipedia (there's an arbitration underway, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2, involving the use of "roadgeek terms").  Neither case applies here.
 * Comment: we actually have much earlier uses: the OED used it in 1959, and G-Dett referred to a usage from the 1920's. Jgui (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether "Jewish lobby is another word for Israel lobby" is a contentious question, both in this article and in the political world. There are citations where the terms are used interchangably, there are citations where vehement political objection has been made to the use of one rather than the other, and there are citations where the two are treated as different. --John Nagle (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for excellent differentiation between "about the term" and "about the subject." I notice there is nothing in WP:NEO that says that a neologisms can only be used as terms and not as subjects. An excellent point to discuss right here. Carol Moore 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Actually, WP:NEO does do exactly that: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on Carol's suggestion to re-read some things, and Shell's apparent realization/indication(?) that my comments may not have been too helpful or too foreboding, one thought has crossed my mind that may be of some help. Please allow me a good night's rest to recover from a recreational evening and I will make what may be a reasonable suggestion that even Jay might accomodate.  But, I need a while to ponder it before I try to write it.  Cheers, so to speak, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, you asked for any ideas on what we can do to resolve this impasse. I think this is something that we need to hash out until we reach agreement since it is fundamental to the content of the page. Perhaps a more rigorous statement of arguments and counter-arguments could be performed - the discussion (that was archived) went down a lot of rat-holes without elucidating any responses to certain topics. Jgui (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Jayjg's comment above, WP:NEO does do exactly that: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I think this is a perfect example of how inaccurate attribution of WP:NEO is being used to nix any information about the topic itself. I really think this WP:neo issue may have to go to arbitration and that we should get serious about settling whether we can mediate it asap. This article has been locked a long time. Carol Moore 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The core of this question seems to be what kind of content can be included in the article. I asked earlier for CasualObserver to list the sources he feels deal in depth with the history and actions of the lobby, so lets give him a bit of time to respond as he's asked. Right now I see a lot of "we need to work this out" and not a lot of "here's what we can do to work this out". Does anyone have any suggestions for how to settle this? Any comments on how to handle content in the article that would resolve this issue? Would it be helpful for everyone to (briefly) restate their argument on the subject? Shell   babelfish 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that will not be helpful because there is a general issue of WP guidelines here, so we need a clear agreement. Subject matter and RS is less relevant to final decision on guideline itself.
 * Once that is agreed upon there is no problem discussing subject matter, knowing that new subjects may come up after mediation is over.
 * I've seen CasualObserver's list and there are many issues that would have to be gotten into with his individual sources and how he wants to use them that could drag on for weeks -- and should drag on in Jewish Lobby talk and not here.
 * I'd rather see a general description of the subject matter people want to discuss, with the obvious understanding those topics only can be addressed with reliable sources. This should be given a time limit like one week for discussion and mediation ends. Specifically the ones I've seen so far are (though I don't think we need discuss them all or even at all):
 * Jewish lobby as synonym for Israel Lobby and Zionist lobby
 * eytmology
 * history of Jewish lobby (and again there has to be discussion of how to relate to other Israel Lobby pages which do not currently have histories - another reason can't get into too many details of CS
 * or some combination of eytmology and history
 * more topics under the current "Activities" section

Carol Moore 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * So do you have any intention of discussing this subject? I suggested a few things to think about when considering whether or not the term is a neologism, I wasn't suggesting that we sit and discuss each thing. Seriously folks, the whole idea here is to figure a way to work out this issue - is anyone interested in that?  Shell    babelfish 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the "neologism" claim, as a justification for deleting citations, permanently dismissed. WP:NEO is a style guideline intended to keep transient popular culture terms ("fancruft") out of Wikipedia. It's not relevant here. We've established that the term "Jewish lobby" has been seen in mainstream sources for decades.  There are books on the subject.  There are major political arguments over it.  What more is needed to get rid of claims that it's a "neologism" unsuitable for Wikipedia?   --John Nagle (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * John has made the point I was not making as well. I don't have a problem with discussing possibly problematic issues once it's decided it's NOT a neologism, which is why I listed them. Carol Moore 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I guess I'm back to being confused about this entire line of argument. I've read WP:NEO several times over the last few days and honestly, unless I'm completely misinterpreting, I don't see anywhere that it says articles which deal with a neologism can only contain information that defines the term. It does say To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. For example, my reading of that is that if there is a book written on the term, it would likely be suitable for inclusion, while a passing mention of the term is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion. However, I think that's a true statement for articles which aren't about neologisms as well - sources that are written about the War of 1812 are much more suitable than sources about another topic which mention the war in passing.

Again, based on my understanding, if there is a paper written about the history of the lobby, that would be suitable for inclusion. Conversely, even a notable person's off the cuff comment that references the lobby is unlikely to be suitable. In either case, it would seem to be more fruitful to discuss the source's reliability and weight as opposed to objecting to the latter based on WP:NEO.

Thoughts, criticisms, discussion? Shell   babelfish 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my absence, I am currently engaged elsewhere. Like others, having considerable discussion moved off to the archives, without decisions being made, makes things difficult (especially when you’re a slow typist). I must reiterate my question, how can NEO be mediated? This seems to be a yes or no answer.

The term Jewish lobby is not a neologism. It has been around for years and years. Well, I know we shouldn’t use Wikipedia itself, but I did find one little thing in another article, which touches directly on two points currently under discussion. Please take a look at Japan bashing. It’s a quick read and what I’m pointing at, is this: “His model was the pro-Israel lobby's use of the term "anti-Semitism" to stigmatize opponents of Israel's policies.”  Now I am sure that Jay will jump all over this because it does not include the term ‘Jewish lobby’, but without too much SYN, this missing word is, in fact, the only link between the other words that are there. This is a confirmation of M&W, et al.’s allegations of usage and intertwining of guilt and shame to end open discussion of the article, we are trying to write.

So what may be open for mediation? Carol brings up some good points. There is one very important article that is missing and redirected here. It is the Zionist lobby. This is a perfectly valid term, particularly between 1897 and May 14, 1948, after Herzl and before Israel. There are books and valid references all over the place, and little facts that cannot be explained any other way.

Now admittedly, I did contribute to these and others, but they are facts, and they are also long-standing unchanged edits. Frankly, I have learned that if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I mean really adds something that isn’t included and should be, you have to work away from the hot pages. Stay away from the arguments. The facts ma’am, just the facts as Joe Friday says. Meyer London includes, “In Israel and the American National Interest, Cheryl A. Rubenberg states, “on September 21, 1922, the American Congress passed a joint resolution stating its support for a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people”. I should also note that this is one day before the British mandate was accepted by the league of Nations. Now, how did this happen, this is 1922. I know that our fine elected officials must have had some impetus. Another good example is Harry Truman, where I have added good solid quotes, but also considerably downplayed the actual quotes (somewhere on the discussion page) for the sake of NPOV. These are facts, they come from reliable sources. Jay has so far, browbeaten us into only using terms with the ‘Jewish lobby’ and although this complies with Wikipedia requirements, it hides too much. This, I hope is open for mediation.

Concerning references and to end this quickly. Here are index entries from my books concerning the broader, but absolutely related, Zionist lobby, Jewish lobby, Israel lobby in the United States, and AIPAC. I did this for my own reference, when I was interested in participating, but it will give an indication of what my reliable sources might have to say, and also indicate the level of frustration I tend to feel concerning lack of progress on this article.

Cheryl Rubenberg book for documentation of AIPAC Index entries for AIPAC: and anti-Semitism, 361; campaign efforts of, 362, 368, 374, 375; concern over Arab efforts to communicate with the American public, 336 – 338; lobbying efforts of, 165, 345 – 46, 350 – 52, 365; media pressure both, 165, 342; pressure tactics of, 207, 317 – 18, 356; registration as lobby, 354.see also Pro-Israel lobby

Index entries for Pro-Israel lobby: ability to exert grass roots pressure, 356; campaign against Habib, 301; affect on Sinai to, 207 – 8; exertion of pressure on media, 336 – 44; impact on American interests, to 31; on move of American Embassy to Jerusalem, 19, 347 – 349; organizations that make up, 353 – 356; power of, 8, 9, 17, 49, 126, 141, 142 – 43, 174-75, 207, 266, 286; role of congressional aides, 355 – 56; role in delivering the money and votes in elections, 317, 357 – 75; role in the formation of American Middle East policy, 13, 14 – 15, 317 – 318, 335, 353 – 75; role in preventing arms sales to Arab states, 151, 226, 258, 346 – 47; techniques used by, at 356 – 357; sophistication of monitoring congressional committees, 356

George W. Ball Book, Index entries for AIPAC: 98, 110, 111, 143, 145, 47, 201, 209 – 17, 337n; AWACS controversy and, 213-14; Congress and, 209 – 13, 215 – 17, 221, 258, 266, 267 – 68, 272, 273, 349n, 362n; Current status of, 215 – 16; Fundraising and, 219 – 20; In independent opinion and, 217 – 18; Publications of, 209 – 11, 215, 217; Saudi arms sales and, 276 – 79; And US aid to Israel, 258; And US arms sales to Arab countries, 272–73; US elections and, 220 to 24

George Lenczowski Book Index entries for AIPAC: 150, 157, 169, 260

Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mediation goes much better when you address the topic at hand briefly and concisely. You long post and many different subjects makes it very difficult to understand what you have to say about the subject under discussion.  I can say however, that I asked for sources written entirely about the Jewish lobby and that doesn't appear to be what you've put up here.  I've also had to refactor your post to remove multiple references to other editors that were unnecessary and bordering on personal attacks.  Please try to limit yourself to the discussion at hand.  Shell    babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the refactor, I will try to learn from it. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * CO48, why do you find it necessary to make personal comments and speculate about me? For example, "Now I can understand that Jay may find the term personally distasteful or whatever, but to use that reason, to obstruct building Wikipedia seems somewhat less than AGF." Completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Don't speculate about what I find "distasteful", and do not claim I am trying to "obstruct building Wikipedia". Express your views on article content, not other editors. As for your comments in general, no, we really can't mediate our way into violating the policies. You ask me to state "what[I] considers should be and should not be in this article?" I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear on that. What should not be in this article is original research or material from unreliable sources. What should be in this article is material from reliable sources that discuss the term "Jewish lobby". Not merely use it. Not material about the Israel lobby. Not material about the Zionist lobby. Material about the Jewish lobby. And if you're wondering why, please review WP:NOR, and then re-read the name of the article. You want to write about the Israel lobby? The Israel lobby in the United States article awaits your input. You want to write about AIPAC? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee article is eager for more information. You want to write about the Zionist lobby? Go start the article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we'll get in to more specifics about article content later; I'm not sure that anyone could give an all inclusive "this is what I think should be in the article" as that evolves over time. In general, no Wikipedia article should include original research or unreliable sources.  That said, there are cases where editors can discuss particular sources and statements to decide whether or not they meet the requirements for inclusion.  As Jayjg points out, we should be sure we're sticking to discussing the article under mediation.  Shell    babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some excellent points, concerning our mediation efforts here. These are, specifically, WP:OR and WP:RS, (as well as the current WP:NEO) and thank you for bringing them up to be discussed/mediated.  Maybe we should start some blank sections below and have them ready, but that is for Shell, I guess.  Other than my wandering into those specific existing sister/brother/cousin/son, closely related articles, (which may or may not be one of these infractions, based on accumulated RSs to date), what did I write that brought these up?  That is not intended to be rhetorical.
 * What in my post violates OR and RS, Shell?  It appears there are problems with even noting books authored by someone Wiki-blue.  I just noted authors and Index citations; is there a Wiki-no-no, I missed. (Many and others already on the archived talk page.) Others brought up these two commonly cited specifics, as well as a nice example of the quick-draw approach, normally used.  We must deal with these issues, as well as how and how quickly they are used. This is mediation, isn’t this the place?.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked Jayjg what can and can not be in the article. Since its incredibly difficult for anyone to answer such a broad, sweeping question, he answered it in the best way he could, namely saying that things that violate Wikipedia policies can't be in articles. There is nothing wrong with his answer - when we start to talk about specific sources or statements later, I'm sure we can get into more detailed arguments. The problem with the indexes you posted was that very little appears to actually be about the Jewish lobby.  Since this entire section has been devoted to discussing what is and is not suitable for inclusion in the article, you seem to have missed that point a bit.  Things that mention the Jewish lobby are not the same as things about the Jewish lobby. Also, if you have issues that you feel need to be part of the mediation (please see the orange box above for the current list of issues we will cover) please add that list in the last section about refocusing the mediation.  Shell    babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above two entries don't seem to squarely address the "neologism" issue. Remain focused, please.  Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, but the ante have been upped and they are very basic to mediation if we think NEO is able to be mediated. Right? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of mediation is that any group of people can find a reasonable solution to a problem. As I said above, I think this is less a problem of WP:NEO and more a problem of sources being used.  Shell    babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I almost missed Shell's sensible comments because of the issues raised by Casual Observer which are fine to discuss once WP:NEO settled - and probably best discussed on article talk page.
 * Shell wrote: I've read WP:NEO several times over the last few days and honestly, unless I'm completely misinterpreting, I don't see anywhere that it says articles which deal with a neologism can only contain information that defines the term.
 * That's what most of the other editors have been saying since March of 2007 when Jayjg first made this contention.
 * Shell wrote: For example, my reading of that is that if there is a book written on the term, it would likely be suitable for inclusion, while a passing mention of the term is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion. However, I think that's a true statement for articles which aren't about neologisms as well - sources that are written about the War of 1812 are much more suitable than sources about another topic which mention the war in passing.
 * Generally right unless some important factoid occurs in such a source like "Einstein in 1936 was the first to call the Zionist organizers 'the Jewish Lobby'." (Hypothetical example.) One big problem with this article is there are a lot of RS mainstream publications that have a headline or first sentence that says: "The Jewish lobby opposes Carter" or "The Jewish Lobby works for Iran sanctions" and then through the rest of the article mentions only specific groups or starts calling it the Israel and even the Zionist lobby - without ever explicitly defining it as such. We DO have RS that define it as some of those groups however and inevitably will find one that defines it as "the Israel lobby" or "the Jewish civil liberties lobby" etc.
 * Shell wrote: Again, based on my understanding, if there is a paper written about the history of the lobby, that would be suitable for inclusion. Conversely, even a notable person's off the cuff comment that references the lobby is unlikely to be suitable.  In either case, it would seem to be more fruitful to discuss the source's reliability and weight as opposed to objecting to the latter based on WP:NEO.
 * Agreed. The topic of where it's best to write the history of a lobby that's been and still called Jewish and Israel lobby (Zionist now directs to Israel lobby) is something that has to be worked out among editors of the two articles.
 * Carol Moore 12:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I think part of the point I was making though is that one mention of Jewish lobby in a newspaper article, especially if it then goes on to call it something else, isn't sufficient. And, if those are the cases where you find most of the use of Jewish lobby, then it actually gives a lot of weight to the argument that this is a neologism - if mainstream news sources use it interchangeably with other terms, that's not really a good sign for the term itself.  What I was referring to in my post is CasualObserver's comments that there are books or papers devoted entirely to the term Jewish lobby -- these types of sources would likely be acceptable for the article.  Unfortunately, the sources he ultimately provided don't seem to be devoted to the term itself.  You also said "The topic of where it's best to write the history of a lobby that's been and still called Jewish and Israel lobby..." and unfortunately, that's not really the way things are done.  Wikipedia uses the most common name of the subject and the article is written there -- so if the two entities are the same thing, its doubtful that information would go under Jewish lobby.  Shell    babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, the books, chapters, references are about ‘the lobby’. An example of two references that have had trouble at this article are described here, note 8.  They appear to be references for Chapter 10 of The Public Dimension of Foreign Policy, by David D. Newsom, reviewed here , and provide a general description for both Tivnan and Goldberg (is that the right one?).  I should note that Tivnan, Ball and other authors start their discussion and/or examples before either Isreal or AIPAC were formed. Therefore, the question of temporal appropriateness  of a term is very important concerning the Zionist/Jewish lobby. Forget AIPAC, that goes elsewhere. (Even if, in this case, Newsome connects Tivnan to only AIPAC in this summary).  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going only from that reference, I'm not seeing any mention of "Jewish lobby". Am I missing that somewhere?  Shell    babelfish 13:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

'I'm copying this down since it seems to have gotten lost in the large posts since:" I guess I'm back to being confused about this entire line of argument. I've read WP:NEO several times over the last few days and honestly, unless I'm completely misinterpreting, I don't see anywhere that it says articles which deal with a neologism can only contain information that defines the term.  It does say To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.''  For example, my reading of that is that if there is a book written on the term, it would likely be suitable for inclusion, while a passing mention of the term is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion.  However, I think that's a true statement for articles which aren't about neologisms as well - sources that are written about the War of 1812 are much more suitable than sources about another topic which mention the war in passing.

Again, based on my understanding, if there is a paper written about the history of the lobby, that would be suitable for inclusion. Conversely, even a notable person's off the cuff comment that references the lobby is unlikely to be suitable. In either case, it would seem to be more fruitful to discuss the source's reliability and weight as opposed to objecting to the latter based on WP:NEO.

Does anyone have any other reactions to my comments? Please try to stay on the topic and limit your statement to 100 words or less; thanks bunches. Shell   babelfish 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, excuse my scattered and incomplete posts to date. I also was late in catching what you said about NEO.  May I take you to mean that you will tend to mediate away from NEO, if reliable sources and references are provided?  Just let us know when and where you need what, so we may mediate this away, I have some (book-in-hand) and am aware of others.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that maybe we can agree what kind of sources should be used, especially since there seems to be a lot of confusion about this term and how it relates to other similar terms. Shell    babelfish 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fundamental issue is the deletion of cited references using WP:NEO as authority for deletion on policy grounds. Only via WP:NEO can a citation from a reliable source be deleted as "original research". If we can establish that "Jewish lobby" is not a "neologism" for Wikipedia purposes, deletions such as this one  must stop. Then we can make forward progress.  --John Nagle (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not quite how things work; there are many other reasons that a particular turn of phrase or reference may be unsuitable for an article and additions or deletions can be handled via discussion. Again, there seem to be a lot of inter-related terms and disagreement over what should be included in the article and how. Shell    babelfish 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been a rather persistent issue; as has been explained to John numerous times, cobbling together sources which simply use a term is original research regardless of whether or not "Jewish lobby" is a neologism. What really needs to stop is John's persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, building articles on terms and concepts by writing from sources that use and describe those terms and concepts is ordinary practice on Wikipedia. It can become excessive and tendentious when activist editors write inflated articles which do not merely describe but in fact propound a controversial term, as has happened with New antisemitism; or when they take a spurious and obscure slur-word and try to legitimize it as a concept, as has happened with Pallywood; but the term "Jewish lobby" has a much longer pedigree than both of those terms, and the editors you're fighting here are neither inflating it nor advancing it.--G-Dett (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While the page John points to may seema bit confusing, and one or two deletions might actually be warranted under the stricktest interpretation, the main point is the massive deletions that lead to ongoing edit wars over this false interpretation of "Jewish Lobby" as a neologism. Carol Moore 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * I'm seeing a lot of "people were edit warring" or "I didn't like this" but not much "here's what I think we can do" or "here's something we can agree on" or even "here's why the term isn't a neologism"....complaining about the situation isn't really going to resolve the issue, but discussing whether or not the term is a neologism and what that means to sourcing the article might. For example, per my long note above, if everyone can come to a general agreement about how to use sources and whether or not those sources must be clearly talking about the Jewish lobby, we might be able to resolve the issue. Shell    babelfish 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am relatively new to the article talk page, so I am not fully aware, but I have seen little discussion of the type Shell suggests.  Because inconsistency in usage and meaning exists, this lead to confusion/debate and should be a part of mediation concerning the various terms that describe ‘the lobby’, and what may be appropriate.  We had also discussed trying to differentiating topics here and here as a way of progressing, but these were objected to for various reasons. Can these previous ideas be mediated now? Again, these seem possible avenues, but much more difficult if NEO is valid.   CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, as John Nagle and I have said repeatedly above, the issue of WP:NEO is pretty much an up or down agreement, with the mediator and all put one editor agreeing the article is NOT WP:NEO.
 * I object to trying to settle the issue via discussing quotes/summaries - it just holds up the WP:NEO issue. Any new discussions  also should come after the current Topics to be discussed are completed, if we're all agreed it is necessary to continue. Carol Moore 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Hang on, that is not what I said. I said that I felt the issue could be resolved by discussing and deciding on some general rules for article content, not that I agreed the term is not a neologism. If you don't want to discuss general rules for article content, then lets talk about why this is or is not a neologism.  This is the last time I'm going to ask that people actually discuss the issue.  Shell    babelfish 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stayed close to the question of whether "Jewish lobby" is a neologism. As to what this means for the article, compare Neoconservatism.  That was a neologism (the article dates its political introduction to a specific article in 1979) that became a political movement. Much the same can be said for "Jewish lobby".  Look at the breadth of the material in  Neoconservatism. That article has major controversies, but they're not over whether the article is "about the term" or "about the movement". "Jewish Lobby" should be treated similarly. --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view it's a neologism because it's a fairly recent term not found in any general dictionaries, and not in particularly common use in reliable sources (though, admittedly, more popular in conspiracist and antisemitic discourse). The fact that reliable sources frequently use the term in quotation marks (e.g., , ) are an indication of its non-acceptance in common parlance. In addition, people cannot even define what it is - and quite often, the sources that actually use the phrase are referring to wildly different things. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth check:
 * "Jewish lobby" appears in quotes in ...the Algerian Veterans Affairs Minister Mohammed Cherif Abbès described France's "Jewish lobby" as "the real architect of Sarkozy's ascent to power".. It's a quotation.
 * Appears outside quotes in the introduction: Newspapers like the New York Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well., and within quotes in Throughout the Arab world, the "Jewish lobby" is seen as the root of all evil in the Middle East.
 * Mohamed Cherif Abbas, Algeria's minister for veterans, was quoted Monday in the daily El Khabar as saying that Sarkozy was brought to power by a "Jewish lobby that has a monopoly on French industry." Again, it's a quotation; the same quotation cited in the first reference.
 * "Jewish Lobby" appears in the 1992 Dictionary of Politics which establishes that it was a recognized phrase at least that far back.
 * Agreed that the meaning of the term is not consistent; that's why the article has several alternative meanings. --John Nagle (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth check:
 * "Jewish lobby" appears in quotes because they're scare quotes - the sources all use them because they all want to distance themselves from the term.
 * Appears outside quotes when used to modify the word "organizations" and within quotes when used in the phrase "the 'Jewish lobby'", proving my point.
 * The 1992 "Dictionary of Politics" is not a standard dictionary, but, rather is an idiosyncratic self-published work.
 * The term is "not consistent" to the point of "meaning a dozen completely different things", because it's a neologism whose meaning has never solidified. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Concerning the above two sets of quotes. I generally agree with the first set and tend to think that the description of the first quote rebuttal is OR, because the editor presumes to know which specific reason at scare quotes Time might have had to break a complete quote as they did. In the second rebuttal quote, the likely reason for the quotes on the second usage is that Arabs do not say “Jewish lobby”, they say it in Arabic, so the quotes are likely provided to indicate a translation. The third point appears to be stretching; the term is most often used to indicate something specifically political, and it ended up in a political dictionary as a result. I would tend to believe the dictionary may be RS, self-published or not; it is a book, not a website.

The rebuttal summation includes quotes with an unknown source, who/what is quoted? I tend to feel that the statement “because it's a neologism whose meaning has never solidified” is OR and would have to be sourced to be used. It is likely that other, better-conceived terms arose due to a general sensitivity to the problem of anti-Semitism, as well as acknowledged (RS) likely anti-Semitic allegations that might arise if it was used. That its meaning might never have solidified could similarly stem from a desire to keep it nebulous and maintain opacity, but that would be OR too. In any case, all these point to the term not being a neologism. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those aren't particularly well chosen quotes; I was just responding to the examples from . Goldberg's "Jewish Power" is a better source, since it's a book about the Jewish lobby and uses the term.  As to the term being ambiguous, that's true of many political terms; I mentioned Neoconservatism, which has at least as much ambiguity. In fact,  there's a new "Jewish lobby", the "J Street Project", which is setting itself up as a centrist counter to AIPAC. This is normal political life. Our job on Wikipedia is to collect and organize the available information about the players.  --John Nagle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are absolutely zero reliable sources describing "Jewish lobby" as a neologism, and as far as I know only one Wikipedian who thinks it is one, so I'm not sure why we're even debating this. Mediation resources are finite.

Furthermore, arguments that have been categorically refuted are being advanced again and again, in a rather disruptive spirit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That "Jewish lobby" is not found in most dictionaries offers us no indication whatsoever about whether it's a neologism, because neologisms are in fact included in standard dictionaries as standard practice. Jay granted this point in January, but has since reverted to ignoring it. The real reason "Jewish lobby" is not in most dictionaries is that, like pharmaceutical industry or Arab lobby, it's a phrase, and dictionaries are not for the most part in the business of defining phrases – unless there's something linguistically special about the phrase, such as for example its being a neologism. And that's the final, ironic nail in the coffin of this absurd, undying the-phrase-isn't-in-dictionaries-so-it-must-be-a-neologism argument. Dictionaries track the evolution of language and so are by definition interested in newly coined phrases as they begin to take hold in popular discourse. This is why the OED has entries for heroin chic, beetle bank, face time, fag hag, viral marketing and thousands of other neologistic phrases. The the-phrase-isn't-in-dictionaries-so-it-must-be-a-neologism argument is well and truly bankrupt, and ought to be dropped forthwith.

The Dictionary of Political Terms was published in 1978; the 1992 edition was the seventh edition. When Jay keeps saying this book is "self-published," he means the publishing company was established by the book's author. True enough, but the book is a standard academic reference work written by a recognized scholar; it is 760 pages long and has gone to many editions. Harvard University has two copies of it, one in the main stacks and another at the reference desk of the John F. Kennedy School of Government library.

The problem here is a confused conflation of neologisms on the one hand with controversial concepts on the other; and a corollary conflation of linguistic normalization with ideological legitimation. To say that term X is a neologism is not to say that the concept it names is disputed; no one disputes for example the existence of the phenomenon trendily known as viral marketing. And conversely, to say that X has ceased to be a neologism does not imply that the concept it references has been legitimated, or even that its use is legitimate in the sense of socially acceptable. Neither "homo" nor "porch monkey" nor "jailbait" are neologisms any more, but irrational exuberance probably still is. The "Israel lobby" is a concept much more respectable in contemporary discourse, but in fact it – not "Jewish lobby" – is the neologism. This whole gigantic red herring has bellied up in our midst because Jay is trying to use WP:NEO to do the work of WP:NPOV. "Jewish lobby" is indeed an offensive phrase to many people, but it isn't a neologism. It has a quaintly tendentious quality about it that many find antisemitic, or at least a little suspect or infelicitous (count me in this latter category), so of course this article's mandate should be circumscribed accordingly (we should not be in the business of legitimizing controversial phrases, as we've done with New antisemitism and Pallywood). But that circumscription is arrived at by a common-sense reading of WP:NPOV, not a strained or strategic reading of WP:NEO.--G-Dett (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Shell's comment above, I confess I was a bit confused at the time- partially cause coming down with bad cold. So stayed away from computer for 48 hours. Glad to see that the discussion by others has clarified the issue in the interim. :-) Carol Moore 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * By "self-published" I mean that the author established the publishing house for the purpose of publishing his "Dictionary of Political Terms". As such, the number of editions is not particularly significant. I'm not sure what leads people to believe it is a "standard academic reference work". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That its multiple editions are regularly housed in university research libraries; that its seventh edition, for example, is shelved at the reference desk of the John F. Kennedy School of Government library at Harvard, part of the non-circulating in-library-use-only collection, limited to high-use reference items.--G-Dett (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To repeat above:"The Dictionary of Political Terms was published in 1978; the 1992 edition was the seventh edition. When Jay keeps saying this book is "self-published," he means the publishing company was established by the book's author. True enough, but the book is a standard academic reference work written by a recognized scholar; it is 760 pages long and has gone to many editions."
 * The internet reveals that the following universities carry or reference it. Not an exhaustive internet search and surely many more do as well:
 * Harvard University in the main stacks and at the reference desk of the John F. Kennedy School of Government library. (per above)
 * http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/rr_gateway/research_guides/polisci/ref.shtml
 * http://www2.ku.edu/~splat/laa700/politicsbib.html
 * http://www.indiana.edu/~libsalc/ps/ps_res.html
 * http://library.albany.edu/subject/guides/psguide.htm
 * http://www.asu.edu/lib/hayden/ref/pol/polscisubjguide.htm
 * http://www.utm.edu/departments/acadpro/library/tutorial/international/
 * For what it's worth: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Definitions_of_capitalism references it. Carol Moore 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * By "self-published" I mean that the author established the publishing house for the purpose of publishing his "Dictionary of Political Terms". As such, it is self-published, and the number of editions is not particularly significant. Now, according to whom is it "a standard academic reference work"? University libraries carry millions of works, that doesn't make them all "standard academic reference works". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, of course university libraries don't house only standard academic reference works. Imagine if they did!  And you had to go to Amazon.com for Proust or Thomas Paine.


 * But books of 700 or so pages with "Dictionary" in the title that are purchased in multiple editions and are library-use-only and shelved at the reference desks of departmental libraries with other selected high-use items are, by and large, standard academic reference works.


 * The relevant question is according to whom is this reference work "idiosyncratic," "non-standard," etc., and according to whom are its entries "neologisms."


 * By the way, which political dictionaries contain "new antisemitism"? The OED's entries for "fag hag," "soccer mom," "McDonaldization," "Google (verb)," and "bling-bling" gave me hope that it might define "new antisemitism," but alas, no dice.--G-Dett (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So I guess you don't actually have a source that says it is "a standard academic reference work", you just think it is because various libraries own copies? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed my post – no, not that various libraries own it, but rather that it's treated by major universities as a standard academic reference work. It hadn't even occurred to me to hunt around for a source saying this, and that sort of seems like a – pardon my candor – lame diversionary tactic on your part.  You haven't bothered to source a single claim you've made  in the course of this discussion, beginning with  'Jewish lobby' is a neologism and continuing right up to This Dictionary of Politics is non-standard and idiosyncratic, but then demand sources for rebuttals to these odd claims.  It's sort of, um, transparently ridiculous.--G-Dett (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "No dice," by the way, is also included:
 * Colloq. phr. no dice: (it is or was) useless, hopeless, unsuccessful, profitless, etc.; nothing; ‘nothing doing’ (orig. U.S.).


 * Wonderful the OED, no?--G-Dett (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone other than want to present an argument that this is not a neologism? --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make much practical difference; you still can't include mere uses of the term in the article, as that's still original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we've heard from . Anyone else? --John Nagle (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, I don't believe any further discussion here will be helpful. We have two sides here and honestly, despite attempts to find some middle ground and discuss actual instances in more detail, we seem to come back to "yes it is" and "no it isn't".  The only thing I can suggest at this point is either to work on specific statements and sources that people would like to see included.  Shell    babelfish 21:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, I think this is an instance where the guidance of a mediator would be helpful. This is clearly an issue that we all think is important; none of us wants to drop it. So far we have made our arguments and you have provided no reaction or guidance on the issue we have been discussing. Could you please do so? Based on your understanding of WP policies, and based on the arguments given above and in the archived section, which arguments do you consider most compelling? Do you consider "Jewish lobby" to be a "neologism" and why? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, please see my current neologism comments below in 'mediation tainted' section, thanks. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned, I have tried to guide you to things I thought might be agreeable to both sides and asked several times if anyone else had any thoughts about how to agree or settle the issue. However, I cannot take sides here and I don't believe there's any policy that would specifically go one way or the other - whether or not a term is a neologism is something that takes discussion and consensus of editors involved.  I've also said that I believe regardless of whether or not this term is considered a neologism for our purposes, that its still going to come down to specific sources and statements and whether or not they should be included in the article.  If we can move on and discuss specific concerns about article text and sourcing, then we should do that.  If we have parties that are unwilling to do so without settling this issue, then I would ask that they suggest a way to settle this issue that everyone can be happy with.  I wish I had more ideas about how to approach this particular issue, but I'm afraid I'm out of suggestions.  Shell    babelfish 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, it is unfortunate that you feel you should so studiously avoid giving any guidance on this issue, since every editor who is taking part in this mediation has expressed their desire to work on this issue. I think it is fair to say that we all consider this to be the fundamental issue that must be addressed before we can make progress. When you asked above whether we had any suggestions I suggested creating a matrix of the arguments and counter-arguments. You have asked us not to create new Talk sections on our own, so I have not created such a matrix myself. But I believe that doing this would clarify the strength of the arguments and counter-arguments. Jgui (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - one last try; here's what I'm getting out of the discussion thus far:

Jewish lobby is a neologism
 * Does not appear in a standard English dictionary; specialist dictionary is self-published
 * No evidence its been used since 1921 or it wasn't referring to AIPAC in 1921; used more recently
 * Definition of term is nebulous, the meaning is controversial, there is no standard use of the term
 * Ordinary adjective-noun combo's don't merit encyclopedia articles
 * Organizations do not refer to themselves as Jewish lobbies
 * Sources that use the term but do not discuss it are the same as original research

Jewish lobby is not a neologism
 * Appears in a specialist dictionary; most dictionaries are self-published; other lobby types also do not appear in dictionaries
 * Phrase has been used since the 70s (or 1921 with a different meaning) in reliable sources; it is not trendy or new
 * Many other adjective-noun combos have articles; notability has already been established
 * Neologism and controversial concept are not the same things, the article should discuss all uses, not just standard uses
 * Sources which use the term and are clearly discussing the term (but not necessarily just the definition of the term) are not original research
 * Neologisms involve one or both component words being used with some novel semantic or metaphorical spin; not the case here.

Another thing I'd like to point out: Jayjg did offer an olive branch at one point, stating that he could see how the term might not be a neologism, but was concerned that other editors would use that to begin inserting original research into the article again.

So I'm going to reiterate my point for one last time here - it absolutely does not matter whether or not all of you agree on the neologism issue the real problem here is sources and how they are used in the article. The misuse of sources that appeared to be original research started the WP:NEO discussion, so fixing the sourcing concerns will fix this problem as well.

Can we agree to this:

Everyone will stop dismissing or making points because of WP:NEO and instead, give a reason based in WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR or whatever other policy is applicable to the problem. Everyone will stop saying "well you did this here" or "but this article..." because all of that doesn't matter, instead they will discuss the actual issue and give clear policy based arguments when in discussion. If an issue is discussed for more than a week without being able to resolve it, the editors will use typical dispute resolution and involve outside editors whether through a third opinion, an article RfC or discussion on an applicable noticeboard (not an admin noticeboard please) to resolve the deadlock. Once an issue has been resolved, everyone will respect that consensus and move on to something else. Shell   babelfish 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, thank you very much for starting a list of the discussion points that have been brought up regarding Jewish lobby as a neologism. I have taken your list, restructured it into a table, and added further arguments that were also touched on. I have organized it so that both sides of each argument appear juxtaposed. Where I could not find an argument/counterargument to use I left it blank. I expect and hope that other editors (e.g. Jayjg) will fill in the blanks in the table with the appropriate arguments.
 * My hope is that the editors on the "Not a NEO" side of the argument will modify the "Not a NEO" arguments, and visa versa. This will allow both sides to best develop and present their arguments. This table is not intended to be static: I hope that other editors will contribute to it to best present the issue and make the strength of the arguments clearer.
 * Shell, I think it is too early to move past this topic. As we saw just days before (in the discussion you archived here) ALL of the editors feel this is an important topic to resolve. I think the structure you started will be an important contribution to that goal. Also, I cannot agree to arbitrary time limits for the conclusion of discussion of topics here. I have a sometime very busy real-life, and cannot guarantee the amount of time I can contribute here. I have already been unable to participate in some discussions because you closed them in less than two weeks, and do not want to have that happen again. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

TOPIC: is the phrase "Jewish lobby" a Neologism as defined at WP:NEO.

NEOLOGISM DEFINITION (from WP:NEO): "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined,  generally do not appear in any dictionary,   but may be used widely or within certain communities." (emphasis added for consistency with following table)

The following arguments have been made, based on this definition, as to why "Jewish lobby" should or should not be considered a neologism. This is a presentation of the lists that Shell provided above plus other arguments that were made but not included above. This table should be modified by all editors to best present the arguments for their side of the debate.

Can we agree to this
Since it creates a lot of tension, how about if everyone stops dismissing or making points because of WP:NEO and instead, gives a reason based in WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR or whatever other policy is applicable to the problem. Also, it would help if everyone will stop saying "well you did this here" or "but this article..." because all of that doesn't matter, instead we can discuss the actual issues and give clear policy based arguments when in discussion. If an issue is discussed for more than a week without being able to resolve it, the editors will use typical dispute resolution and involve outside editors whether through a third opinion, an article RfC or discussion on an applicable noticeboard (not an admin noticeboard please) to resolve the deadlock (this doesn't apply to things here in mediation, but new issues that come up). To avoid stirring up problems and developing a bad atmosphere at the talk page, once an issue has been resolved, everyone will respect that consensus and move on to something else.

Is this something that everyone could agree on as a framework to handle issues that come up? If not, what do you think would help resolve the issues (please do not comment on individual editors here, address problems)?


 * As a person who doesn't think it's WP:NEO, that's fine with me where agreement is clear. Carol Moore 12:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Sounds OK to me; agreement should be clear, indeed. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, you copied your question from above, but didn't include my response so I will copy it down here as well. I think it is too early to move past this topic. As we saw just days before (in the discussion you archived here) ALL of the editors feel this is an important topic to resolve. I think the structure you started will be an important contribution to that goal. Also, I cannot agree to arbitrary time limits for the conclusion of discussion of topics here. I have a sometime very busy real-life, and cannot guarantee the amount of time I can contribute here. I have already been unable to participate in some discussions because you closed them in less than two weeks, and do not want to have that happen again. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I created a table above to list arguments and counter-arguments for this issue (based on the list you provided). Could we spend some time developing that table of arguments to make progress on this issue, which was one of the issues that caused us to enter mediation in the first place? Thank you Jgui (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you do understand that even if everyone agrees this isn't a neologism, it doesn't open up the article for any and all new material - each item must still be discussed on its own merits. Since we haven't been able to reach an agreement on this issue in several weeks, and everyone else is willing to move past this so that work can resume on the article, can you give some details about what resolution you think will come out of continuing the discussion?  I'm sorry if there's things you feel you haven't fully participated in, but it seems like in those cases that you are against the agreement everyone came to -- while we are here to try to find compromises that everyone can agree on, I cannot let a single editor continue to stall process on the mediation.  If you feel that you're going to be unable to bend from your positions to reach compromises, mediation is probably not going to be a productive exercise.  Shell    babelfish 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure Shell, anything you think will help. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still here and listening. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell, When you say "everyone else is willing to move past this issue", you are implying that I am the holdout here who is working contrary to the aims of the other editors. In fact, there is a single editor who has stated that "Jewish lobby is a neologism" and he is the only editor here who has deleted good-faith contributions of other editors based on this belief. It is he who is the holdout since he is the one who has decided to stand with this view contrary to the view of all the other editors contributing to this mediation. If you are willing to let that editor - "a single editor continue to stall process on the mediation", then why are you unwilling to let us other editors continue this conversation to try to actually resolve this issue? Furthermore you said that all the other editors have stated they "are willing to move past this" by ignoring the issue - but could you show me where Nagle or G-Dett have stated that?
 * I have presented a table laying out the arguments on both sides of this issue - using your summary of the issues as a starting point. So far you have ignored this contribution of mine. I hope that you as mediator would take this as a good-faith effort on my part to organize our conversation and work to resolution of this issue, which is central to the conflict that has played out on the "Jewish lobby" page for the last eighteen months.
 * If - as you imply with your comment about Jayjg's "olive branch" - Jayjg is willing to concede that this term is NOT a nelogism, then I for one would certainly agree not to "begin inserting original research into the article again" (in your words) and I will of course expect that "each item must still be discussed on its own merits" (in your words). So far, I have not seen anything approaching this statement from Jayjg. But if you have seen it, then please point it out to us or ask him to reiterate it here so that we as a group can, indeed, move on. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually I was referring to your behavior during this mediation; so far you have challenged each agreement and proposal made in the mediation without making any of your own -- there's nothing wrong with opposing a proposal or agreement, but it would be helpful if you would offer something other than just continuing the discussion. I understand that you are frustrated - issues that get to formal Mediation have usually gone on for a while without parties being able to agree.  I think that perhaps people are misunderstanding the idea of mediation -- the goal here is not for one side to be right or wrong, but to discover a way to accommodate everyone's viewpoints and learn how to work out these problems in the future without the need of a mediator.  Thus my suggestion to drop the WP:NEO issue, including no longer dismissing or including things based on it -- from my understanding of the discussion here, material being excluded based on this policy was the major concern -- if everyone can agree to make arguments for or against inclusion without bringing up WP:NEO, wouldn't that resolve the issue?  Shell    babelfish 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear at this point that nobody except claims that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism under WP:NEO.  Even Jayjg doesn't really seem to take his own claim very seriously any more.  So we should "move past this" by agreement that WP:NEO does not apply to "Jewish lobby" and cannot be used as a policy justification for deletion of citations and quotes.  Then we can argue over reliable sources and weight. --John Nagle (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for agreeing or not agreeing about the WP:NEO issues, isn't that exactly what my proposal states? Shell    babelfish 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, but "agreeing or not agreeing about the WP:NEO issue" is the crux of this issue. We are not looking for an agreement so we can add a couple of paragraphs to this article - we are looking for an agreement that will last into the future and set usable guidelines for future edits. Jayjg has spent more than eighteen months deleting the good-faith edits of other editors based on this WP:NEO argument. And he has not agreed to stop doing so. Until he does, it is not reasonable for you to expect us to move on and drop this issue that we feel is of critical importance. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your concern is that edits will be deleted based on WP:NEO.
 * My proposal is that WP:NEO no longer be used as a justification for anything.
 * We're getting to the heart of the problem here -- Several editors feel that their work was removed without proper discussion because a call to WP:NEO was used as the reason for removal.  I think the agreement I've proposed, since it requires agreeing not to use WP:NEO as a reason for anything, will resolve that problem.  I think its also important that everyone involved feels that their concerns are getting a fair discussion, and I think this proposal will help with that as well.  The proposal also lays out some ideas of how to handle future problems, including calling in opinions of other editors sooner, to avoid the long-drawn out arguments that have caused such mistrust among the group of editors active at this article.
 * Several weeks of discussion of WP:NEO have failed to convince everyone that the term is not a neologism; at this point, I don't feel that continued discussion is going to change that (especially since no new arguments have been made). There's no provision in mediation to force someone to agree with a point and mediators don't make judgments.  If your goal is to make Jayjg agree that the term is not a neologism, you've got the wrong idea about mediation.
 * The thing that's confusing me here is that Jayjg has already agreed to this proposal. Since your concern was that he no longer delete things based solely on WP:NEO, is there any reason this doesn't resolve your concern?  Shell    babelfish 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to put my proposal a little more succinctly and make sure we don't have confusion here:
 * Discussing content based on WP:NEO should stop. Instead, use the policies WP:NEO was based on to be more specific -- if you feel something is undue weight, unverifiable, original research or whatever the case may be, make the argument that way.
 * Focus on discussing content. Avoid bringing up what editors do elsewhere, use policy based arguments instead.
 * If new issues emerge and more than a week of discussion does not resolve them, everyone is strongly encouraged to use RfC or appropriate noticeboards to solicit outside opinions to resolve the issue.
 * Once issues are resolved, let them rest.

And like I've said elsewhere, part of the goal of mediation is to find a way that this group can work together so eventually, a mediator is not needed to help sort out issues. I think this agreement is a step in that direction and I'd be happy to hear other suggestions of things that would help deescalate the situation or help everyone find a way to work together. Shell   babelfish 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Shell, you simply fail to hear me when I state the fundamental issue here. Let me restate it yet again: Jayjg has spent more than eighteen months deleting the good-faith edits of other editors based on this WP:NEO argument. And he has not agreed to stop doing so. Until he does, it is not reasonable for you to expect us to move on and drop this issue that we feel is of critical importance. If, as you claim, Jayjg has agreed that he will never delete any more text from this page based on a faulty interpretation of the WP:NEO argument, then please show me where he has done that. Maybe I've missed it - if so - where is this agreement? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It might have been lost in the volumes of text above.
 * Sure Shell, anything you think will help. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So there it is, no more anything based on WP:NEO. This doesn't mean that no one will ever remove content from the article - there can be many reasons that text isn't appropriate for an article, but, we're at least agreeing not to remove content claiming WP:NEO.  Shell    babelfish 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, are you serious? What is Jayjg's "anything you think will help" in response to? It seems to be in response to a completely different question - and it is certainly not an agreement that "No editor will delete any more text from this page based on a faulty interpretation of the WP:NEO argument" which is what I and other editors are looking for. Is such an agreement from Jayjg somewhere else that I have missed? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided you the exact quote (which you can find above) and the direct diff - please take a moment to look for yourself instead of throwing out more hostile comments. If the mediation is getting under your skin today, take a few breaths and come back when you can discuss things civilly.  Shell    babelfish 15:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell, Sorry no hostility intended - just incredulity. I read the exact quote and diff - but as I noted above, this appears to be in response to a different post of yours, and certainly does not state "No editor will delete any more text from this page based on a faulty interpretation of the WP:NEO argument". Perhaps we should continue below to discuss agreements that would be acceptable to all, and then see which editors will agree to it. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a modification to the agreement you are proposing that I hope would attract the support of ALL editors taking part in mediation here. Just to put my proposal a little more succinctly and make sure we don't have confusion here:
 * Discussing content based on WP:NEO should stop. Editors agree that WP:NEO should not be applied to this article, and it should not be used to justify removal of text from this article. Instead, other applicable WP policies should be used -- if you feel something is undue weight, unverifiable, original research or whatever the case may be, make the argument that way.
 * Focus on discussing content. Avoid bringing up what editors do elsewhere, use policy based arguments instead.
 * Once issues are resolved, let them rest.

This is an agreement that I wholeheartedly agree to. As I stated before, I simply cannot agree to limiting discussion to a single week - that is insufficient time given my busy real life - and in fact I will note that Shell and Jayjg also disappeared from this discussion for close to a week, so it is apparently too short a time for all editors. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer you not take out the suggestion that people use dispute resolution to help resolve issues, but if you'd like to remove the time limit all together, I wouldn't mind at all. Shell    babelfish
 * OK, I've modified it to add such a statement that I would support. Jgui (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Current proposal
To restate it here:
 * Discussing content based on WP:NEO should stop. Editors agree that WP:NEO should not be applied to this article, and it should not be used to justify removal of text from this article. Instead, other applicable WP policies should be used -- if you feel something is undue weight, unverifiable, original research or whatever the case may be, make the argument that way.
 * If issues emerge that apprear irresolvable, everyone is strongly encouraged to use RfC or other dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the issue.
 * Focus on discussing content. Avoid bringing up what editors do elsewhere, use policy based arguments instead.
 * Once issues are resolved, let them rest.

Votes:

Support Jgui (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do read Jayjg's comment above as acceptance of what Shell proposed, though I certainly am not against a more explicit agreement statement or agreement by Jayjg. Speaking of time tables, I myself have been enjoying the fact that Jewish Lobby is far more NPOV than it was 9 months ago and working on other articles I have been putting off for months. I do feel that certain issues have been agreed upon here and if no list is created, assume the archives will survive should I need future verification. But I haven't bothered to put them into the article until start to focus on it again - also watching for WP:RS statements via google alerts that my clear up some issues. Carol Moore 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Carol, Jayjg will get to vote in turn. Can I ask whether you support this latest statement of the agreement - if so please add your vote above? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreed with Shell's above as I stated. I agree with Jgui's statement also, though I do think there need to be exceptions in the case where several others who might be new later (3 - 6 - 9 months down the road) bring up an issue and seek support. For example, whether undescribed "pejorative" statements or the Cesarani quote are WP:undue or POV or whatever and should be removed. I think I agreed to give up on former given lack of support; I think Ceasarni unresolved. So in cases like that I think there needs to be some leeway. So maybe if you change it to: "Once specific issues are definitively agreed upon by parties to mediation, those parties will not initiate those specific issues again."  Carol Moore 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I appreciate your concern Carol; just to clarify, this isn't meant to limit discussion from new editors or even limit discussion should the situation change on an issue. Its more a suggestion that after an issue is settled, everyone take a break from it for a while -- if it needs to be revisited later because of new or changed information, there's no reason not to discuss the issue again.  And of course, we're not going to be making agreements here that will affect editors who weren't involved in the mediation -- there's no reason that someone can't pass along good ideas to editors who weren't in the mediation, but they can't be expected to know or abide by things they hadn't seen.  Shell    babelfish 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've agreed with Shell's proposal already; I'm not sure why this is still being discussed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal takes the time limit off the suggestion about getting outside editors involved in discussions that aren't being solved on the talk page. Shell    babelfish 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the change on the time limit. If we're going to change anything else about your proposal, I'd prefer it be that while the mediation is on-going we won't make any changes to the article that aren't agreed to in the mediation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the proposal has been slightly modified to meet the concerns of other editors, and because there are other editors who have not yet read it. So I take it from your affirmative note that you agree with the latest restatement of that agreement above. That is encouraging. If not, please indicate so. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that dispute resolution was removed from Jgui's proposal and I'll agree that if not resolved after a week or two at most that it should go to other means of resolution. Also, I do not read either proposal or anything else as saying that changes can't be made unless approved here. Only ones that rise to level of disputes. I notice other editors have sort of dropped interest for now in wp:neo.
 * However, per my May 13 comment below. There are the "topics to be discussed" above to resolve, some two months old, most relatively easy. I would particularly like to deal with "Should the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia quote be moved to the antisemitism section?" There doesn't seem to be any good reason for not dealing with them. If there is, please clarify. Thanks. Carolmooredc {talk}

Support We've dealt with this issue. --John Nagle (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support And will be watching for developments. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are Nagle and CasualObserver supporting Shell's original or Jgui's version? (or are they now the same?) Once I realized the difference, I preferred Shell's with the time limit. Note that Jayjg comment above, preferring no time limits and adding no changes should be made in article unless agreed in mediation. I disagree with that and think new issues should be discussed here only if they become issues on the page. Carol Moore 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I would imagine that they are supporting Jgui's revised version. Seriously, we can keep going on this forever, or you can agree that you're a reasonable person working with other reasonable people and you'll be able to appropriately determine when to seek third-party input without out specifically imposing a time limit. Jgui made a very good point about different editors having different levels of involvement and ability to devote time here; if a situation occurs that could use special review that would be appropriate for a specific noticeboard (i.e. reliable sources noticeboard) or outside opinions are needed to help resolve a deadlock, any involved editor can initiate those processes. Absent any major objections, I'm going to close this area so we can move on and try to resolve some of the other issues.  Shell    babelfish 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am supporting the "current proposal" as stated above, with no "time limit" and no "while the mediation is on-going we won't make any changes to the article that aren't agreed to in the mediation." The purpose of the "current proposal" is essentially to nail down the "neologism" issue. Let's not get diverted into other areas in this section. --John Nagle (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I struck a sentence of confusion on my part, since evidently we only are talking about the proposal beneath section header "current proposal." Actually I'm not sure where Jqui's proposal has ended up and thought it was deleted til noticed Shell refers to it directly above. Sorry if my confusion seems unreasonable!
 * Second, that proposal doesn't say anything about no changes not approved by mediation and a time limit is implicit since if issues can't be resolved they can go to other forms of resolution. Carol Moore 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}