Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:14, 30 January 2008

Working on this article...

I am working on it now and hopefully this can becoe a really good article and not a sham one with only reliable references. I have used the template for the U.S. version so any help would be greatly appreciated. Needs re-writing by someone better than me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. In writing this article it needs to be spotless, with good references. In doing this we need to hold dear the below three quotes:

"In all affairs It's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted" - Bertrand Russell

"In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ..." - Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Israel lobby in the United Kingdom?

Is their enought for an article on the 'Israel lobby in the United Kingdom', a bit like 'Israel lobby in the United States'?

I have found this information whioch discusses such in the UK:

First I moved this to the end where supposed to be; also archiving soon. Second, do you want to talk about specifically about Jews and others lobbying for Israel, or do you want to include just Jews lobbying for other issues as well? In the first case, you should just go for it and disambiguate from Israel_lobby, using The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as an example. In the latter, you might get some of people here complaining about various content, which your review of talk page and edits will make clear. You also might considering doing an article on Israel Lobby in Europe since there is a lot of interesting activity going on over there and it avoids having to do it country by country.Carol Moore 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Many of those sources aren't too good. (Don't cite David Duke, for example.) Stick to mainstream journals, books, and academic studies.

We already have the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre article, which could use updating from reliable sources. BICOM was formed a few years back as sort of the UK version of AIPAC, and the article is a bit behind the times. See, for example, this Jerusalem Post article [1] and this article from Haaretz.[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?

Most of these sources don't even mention the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple suggestions

I won't make myself since not familiar enough with source material

Should call it a loose network, not organization
Should put three items evidently on same subject under footnoote [2] in same paragraph to make clear same topic and same footnote
Since an individual is not a group, if Lord Levy is head of a group, say something like "Lord Levy and his informal lobbying group, whatever the case may be.
Include a history section and can get into influence of Zionists on Brit policy until and after creation of Israel; MUCHO info there and links to other Wiki articles
Use lots of different search terms for various topics of interest with any main terms since good stuff often is hiding that will come up on top if you use the right terms. (Like Israel Lobby and all of the following: UK, United Kingdom, Britain, England, Crown, etc.)

If I come across anything relevant will add it in. Carol Moore 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk} Carol Moore 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}[reply]

Absurd abuse of source

I've had to clean out the nonsense from the article. The article, as written, absurdly abused its sources - for example

It claimed that the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom is defined as having had "embedded itself in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government. Its stated purpose is to promote Israel’s interests in our Parliament and sway British policy." In reality, a letter written by 20 people in the U.K. claimed that the "Israel lobby in the UK" had done this. This claim by 20 individuals in a letter is not a "definition", much less a fact.
It claimed that "according to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and , five key formal lobbying groups" and proceeded to name them. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, of course, has never even commented on the "Israel lobby in the United Kingdom", much less defined it as consisting of five organizations.
It claimed that "Haaretz has reported that "a similar, AIPAC-style operation in Westminster would not just influence policy, it would also subvert fundamental democratic mechanisms." In fact, it was an opinion piece in Haaretz, not Haaretz that stated that, what the article stated was "The problem on this side of the Atlantic is that British politics lacks anything approaching the American system of openly declared political lobbies; a similar, AIPAC-style operation in Westminster would not just influence policy, it would also subvert fundamental democratic mechanisms", and that "So the might of Jewish organizations is inflated, conspiracies imagined, to fill the gap between the reality of a Jewish community trying to do its best for Israel, and the fantasy of politicians and prime ministers bowing their knee to the power of the almighty Lobby." and concludes that "If there is a Jewish conspiracy, it is remarkably ineffective."

This kind of POVing and abuse of sources goes against all Wikipedia policies. Shame! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to help fix this now, incorporating the information, but less POV I hope. For example, I have put the Haaretz piece in criticisms with your comments. 81.158.18.147 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has filled up with unsourced and duplicate material again. I will remove it; please, all editors, make sure everything in the article is properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I can't see a single actual reference to a proper study of an organised lobby, or at least one in an RS. If I dont' see one in a few days, I'm taking this to AfD. Pending the AfD, I'm not editing the article, which otherwise I would, especially as it seems to have a slightly unpleasant tinge to me, particularly the 'financial grips' thing. Ewww. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a British MP, Baroness Tonge, that said that. It is not as if it was a statement by a Wikipedian who works on the article. I don't want this article to be biased and I don't want it to lean any or either way. I want it to be a good r3eferenced and educating article. I think it deserves that much. Not just, owe I don't like that, let's delete it attitude. And, it clearly states that "Although powerful in itself, thoughtful individuals recognise that the FoI and BICOM are not representative of mainstream opinion in the British Jewish community or Britain more boradly." If you can help, your input would be greatly appreciate, as would anyones. Robert C Prenic (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I'll hold off on making various corrections, including spelling mistakes, until someone produces at least a couple of references in a reliable source that imply that there is an organised lobby in the American sense at work in Westminster. If those turn up, I'll see what I can do to put all these statements in context. If those don't, this goes to AfD. Relata refero (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far I see one quote by an MP not necessarily about a British lobby, a couple of articles about an advisor who said something about Blair knowing too many Jewish people, and an opinion article about the impact of Walt-Mearsheimer in the UK. Hello? Where's the evidence that this is a notable subject? Not only does an organised lobby not appear to exist, but a controversy about an organised lobby doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources either. Unless something new turns up in 24 hours, I'm slapping an AfD template on. Relata refero (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to Arbitration Enforcement now??

This article is only a few days old and obviously Robert Prenic is learning as he goes. Changes made by an anon IP and others obviously are hostile and not meant to improve the article, only to delete it.

This is very much against Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. If you go for speedy deletion I'll bring this to that both deletion group and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Let's cooperate here, not attempt to destroy others efforts, even if they are less than perfect.

Constructive editors please note:

Please find a good defining quote for your first sentence. It doesn't have to be perfect because we may have to get this under the on revert rule like on Jewish lobby (see talk page).
Also I asked for good quotes from knowledgable editors on Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States who are doubtless chock full of them.
it may take me a couple days to get to work on it myself.Carol Moore 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I beg your pardon? I presume the Arbcom ruling you mean is about if an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Could you please explain how I, who rarely edit in I/P issues, am failing to adhere to the purpose of WP by demanding evidence of notability? Relata refero (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defined phrase and other changes

Having no self control once I get a bee in my bonnet, I looked through the list of sources above (and some should never have been listed!) and pulled out the good solid WP:RS info. I also renamed sections Debate and Criticism (per Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States) and reordered them. That Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) quote is pretty rambling and un-enlightening and better ones can be found.

If anyone wants to check them out for more info to put in the article, before I get around to it, the best sources I found were:

So they say they’re in charge About Jewish Leadership Council
New Israel lobby ‘not taking on Bicom’dressed.”
VIEWPOINT / 'Israel Lobby' book may have sinister impact in U.K.
Palestinians charge there is an israel lobby
Jewish MP's Allegations 1, 2, 3
The shadowy role of Labour Friends of Israel
British Jews looks like it has some interesting info and wiki links that might be relevant here

So let's control ourselves and not go running to speedy delete :-) Carol Moore 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 *  Also I asked for good quotes from knowledgable editors on [[Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States]] who are doubtless chock full of them.
 * it may take me a couple days to get to work on it myself.Carol Moore 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] [[User talk:Carolmooredc|{talk}]]
+::I beg your pardon? I presume the Arbcom ruling you mean is about if an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Could you please explain how I, who rarely edit in I/P issues, am failing to adhere to the purpose of WP by demanding evidence of notability? [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 ==Defined phrase and other changes==