Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive 4

We need help; the talk page is severely in need of repair. Much of previous discussion is missing and mis-located in the cyber-ether. For example, [this post], and the many other posts indicated on that TOC are not now easily accessible. Does someone know how to fix it? Since I have previously wasted much time and had my AGF eroded here, I will avoid engagement until the talk page is repaired. Are the previous mediation discussions linked to the page; they should be also. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying things that are supposed to be in archives have ended up else wheres? How can we fix it. How can we identify who did it to make sure they know proper archiving procedures. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, fingers were faster than eyes; I missed the typed links, expecting the file cabinet icon instead. To quote Emily Litella, "Never mind." CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of archiving we should do that soon, til end of 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here for the person who deleted it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions the political arm of the Jewish lobby, but it omits the obvious financial and banking element of the lobby, which allows for widespread Jewish influence in politics and media. This extends from Rothschild to Lehman Brothers, and even to Bernard Madoff. ADM (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad examples. L.F. Rothschild, Lehman Brothers, and Bernard Madoff all went bust. If you're looking for influence, look at Goldman Sachs. Henry Paulson and many of the top people at Treasury under Bush were from Goldman Sachs. But Paulson isn't Jewish. --John Nagle (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is one area where one cannot necessarily just push facts to the Israel lobby in US article. On the other hand, I think you would need massive evidence that the lobbying in question was coordinated Jewish-related lobbying, as opposed to a bunch of bankers lobbying in various formations, a certain percentage of whom are Jewish. (Who ever the bankers/businesses are, whether or not they ultimately fail not as important as any coordinated lobbying.)SO if you had something called the "Jewish Bankers Lobbying group" it might be relevant. Or if you had "Wall Street bank lobbyists" and one or more WP:RS saying that it was predominantly Jewish lobbying effort and only token gentiles were allowed.

On the other hand there are a lot of WP:RS describing Jewish lobby groups for whom Israel is only one of several issues and I think we could use a section on "Jewish lobby groups" and their non-Israel related activities like reporting actual or alleged antisemitism and hate crimes, working on discrimination and negative imaging issues, raising money for any Jewish-related social/political activities, and promoting hate crime laws, etc. If someone wants to do the work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has been reorganized as proposed several months ago to improve the presentation. Please bear in mind that no article text has been removed or added - it has simply been reorganized. The following changes have been made:

• 1. The actual dictionary definition of JL has been placed first in the list of definitions that are given, since that should receive more prominence than offhand definitions in speeches or articles.
• 2. The Criticism section has been moved to be part of the Definition section, since this section actually consists of criticisms NOT of the Jewish Lobby, but criticisms of the Definition.
• 3. Section name Antisemitic Usage has been renamed Antisemitic Claim since this argument should not be made in WP voice.
• 4. Section Antisemitic Claim Criticism has been added for those who dispute that claim.
• 5. Lobbying box was added consistent with Definition of term.
• 6. Some of the embedded blockquotes hidden in the References have been removed where they are not related to the term JL, or simply repeat the quote that is already in the document.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to give people a chance to respond with concerns. Responses and a couple other comments.

• 1 and 2: I don't think you need to section off the criticisms. Despite these two minor criticisms, the simple truth is the major media use the phrase all the time instead of Israel lobby (as a google search will show). It's both less WP:UNDUE and more encyclopedic to have an introductory sentence saying something like: "Some believe it is more accurate to use the phrase "Israel Lobby" especially when dealing with issues directly related to Israel." and then shorten the relevant parts of both Bard and W/M.
• Note: FYI chanced upon a Second party ref on Mearsheimer/Walt definition.
• 3: "Antisemitic and/or pejorative claim" The section is almost as long as rest of article and WP:UNDUE, considering that mainstream sources use the phrase all the time and that the examples are innocuous. It should be cut by at least 2/3 to most reliable source and any truly useful examples. (After all it really is used in an anti-Semitic way by some people.)
• 4 Just remove that section and use some version of Goldberg's comments in definition.
• Activities: It should go back under definition since otherwise gives too much weight to criticisms (when mainstream media use phrase all the time). But it definitely needs broadening with other more current WP:RS describing non-Israel related lobbying.
• I have had "Jewish Lobby" on google alert for almost a year and have been deleting least useful/WP:RS articles so sometimes soon I'll go through and see if I can find any material that would fit in here. Also books google has added a lot of stuff and just searching Jewish Lobby I immediately found some good stuff which will look at soon - unless you want to beat me to it! :-) Then I might do some edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Carol, responses to responses:

• 1 and 2:I think it is important to keep the different sections distinct, because otherwise the arguments get mixed and muddled as the article evolves; furthermore it becomes harder to judge (as you were doing) whether there is UNDUE at play. Most important is to remember that WP is an encyclopedia - and a framework allows a reader looking for information quickly to understand how the info is organized, and where to look.
• 3 and 4:I am not a deletionist, so in general I am not comfortable deleting relevant RS material that has been cited. Which is why I kept everything in the article and just re-arranged it. To me the best way to deal with UNDUE is to allow the other side of the argument to be stated and developed - which is again why I added the antisemitic criticism section. Perhaps some trimming of repetitive quotes in the antisem section would be in order, but I would give it time to see how the article develops with this new organization first and get plenty of discussion before deleting anything.
• Activities: I thought it more important to first talk about the definition of the term, and the related issue of how the term is used, before getting into the goals and activities of the groups described by the term. The idea is to discuss the term (history, usage, etc) before getting into the details of the groups themselves. I think this is reasonable given this article's history of some editors incorrectly claiming that the term was a "neologism", but I don't feel that strongly about it, and could see putting the activities section before the antisemitism section if there is consensus on that. Thanks for the tip on google; I'll check it when I get the chance.

Thanks, Jgui (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with categories for now until hopefully better material found. Looking again at #4 again, I realize I was wrong about deleting all of that; just read through too quickly. However, I do think that the "claims" (see WP:WORDS) of anti-Semitism is far too long. However, as I have been for the last year, refraining from editing to get more updated WP:RS together which will make it easier to explain/defend deletion of coatrack and other less useful info.

However, I do think activities should be moved up immediately because as I've said the great majority of search returns on this phrase use it in a non-antisemitic way and the minority view interferes with logical flow of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the major religious movements of American Judaism be considered part of the Jewish lobby? The URJ, for example, is pretty activism-oriented (especially in the case of its Washington, DC, offices). Also, there are numerous Orthodox Jewish groups with their own agendas (several contrary to the URJ's, but not always so), while Conservative Judaism has its own ideas (of course). 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should be talking about a number of Jewish LOBBIES. For example, [this], [this], and [this] might not always agree, but each shows a Jewish approach to the world around us. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Orthodox Judaism (or, more properly, the various Orthodox Jewish groups and people) are more tradition-oriented, Biblical rules-oriented, individualistic/small group oriented, while the thinking of Reform and Conservative Judaism are more along the lines of labor unions - groups of synagogues dedicated to social action, as well as taking somewhat common views on religious matters (not completely common, but vaguely common). There is a great focus on the responsibility of decision-making in Judaism, there is a vigorous tradition of argument and rhetoric throughout the religion, and there is no single Pope in Judaism (or in any of the movements, really, except, perhaps, for Hasidic dynasties and/or attempts at "Sanhedrins" and/or national "chief rabbis"). Judaism's political structure is a lot closer to Protestantism and Islam than it is to Catholicism, so to speak. Politically, Orthodox Judaism is more to the right wing while (the ironically named) Conservative Judaism and its more liberal mother, Reform Judaism, are more to the left. Maybe it's just the divide between frum and frei there speaking, and nothing more. I dunno. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article relates to political lobbying. So differences among the groups in their views about, approaches to, amount of lobbying and on what topics they focus lobbying obviously relevant. The political differences themselves would only come up if mentioned by WP:RS about their lobbying efforts.

One problem is that in the past a certain individual who is not allowed to edit on these topics any more used to insist that only sources that defined or discussed Jewish lobbies were allowed, not ones that discussed the activities of what the WP:RS called a "jewish lobby." Since almost everyone else disagreed, I think we now have more leeway to discuss those activities, though if the primary activity is lobbying on Israel, it might be best to put that article in the relevant Israel lobby article. I've been gathering a lot of new sources over last year but just too busy to take half a day to put them all together. :-(CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more reasons to keep this "Jewish Lobby" since the phrase is used that way all over the world and not just in US. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. Someone who's good at moving back will do so soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as stated elsewhere, the title now does not describe the article.John Z (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Happily it was a quick WP:ANI and it's back to original name. Plus I changed other content and added "worldwide" since current refs infer that and more explicit ones doubtless could be added. So many articles, so little time! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted a list of about 100 names under the heading "Italians academics jewish lobby pro Israel", all red links. I invite User:1molletta to explain why this list should be added to the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is POV to the extent that dismisses claims of Jewish influence in our society. Consider the following:

Stanley Kramer, a Jew, was the producer and director of Inherit the Wind. In that film, Kramer deliberately distorts and misrepresents a known and verifiable historical event, the Scopes Trial. For example, although the Butler Act did not provide for imprisonment, the movie states that the defendant was subject to imprisonment for violating the statute. The defendant in real life was not confined to jail during the trial, but in the movie, he is. Townsfolk did not burn the defendant in effigy or otherwise mistreat him or disrespect him, but that occurs in the movie. William Jennings Bryan was not a raving fanatic, and he did not die while attending court. Kramer further portrays Christianity in a very negative light, and implies that narrow-minded simplistic Fundamentalism represents mainstream Christian thought when it does not. Kramer thus very effectively denigrates the Christian religion and promotes the cause of atheism and agnosticism. For all of this, he is hailed as a great artist.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Christian producer made a movie that portrayed Jews in a similar negative light? It is barely acceptable to play the music of Richard Wagner or to perform Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, and the Anti-Defamation League has made objections to the Passion Play being performed in Oberammergau. See http://www.adl.org Roman Catholics tremble over whether it is appropriate for them to pray for the Jews during Good Friday services lest they incur the wrath of the Anti-Defamation League and others. Mel Gibson was subjected to criticism when he made Passion of the Christ. If there is no "Jewish influence" in our society, why does this double standard on discrimination exist? To coyly wring our hands and pretend that it does not exist is academically dishonest. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a WP:reliable source using term "Jewish Lobby" on that topic it might be pertinent to this article. However, the rest of your commentary is WP:Soapbox. Specific WP:RS facts can go into specific articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything factually inaccurate in what I have written above? If so, please identify it. John Paul Parks (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the 'Activities' section, shown below is a longer quote from page 23 of Edward Tivnan's 1987 book, The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy, which prompted this edit, though differences may remain.

In January 1943, delegates from thirty-two national Jewish organizations met in Pittsburgh to decide upon the role that the American Jewish community would play in representing Jewish demands after the war and helping to build Jewish Palestine. The result was the creation of an American Jewish Conference of sixty-four Jewish groups, including a skeptical American Jewish Committee, representing 1.5 million American Jews --- the most representative gathering of American Jews ever. The first meeting took place in August with moderate Zionists eager to play down the maximalist goal of a “Jewish commonwealth” and concentrate on supporting Zionism through philanthropy. Silver erupted in an attack on Wise, and called for the delegates to endorse Biltmore. Upset, the delegates from the American Jewish Committee walked out. But the conference sided with Silver and he emerged from the meeting as the new leader of American Zionism. Silver called for “loud diplomacy.”[His ref 20: Grose, Mind of America, p. 172; see also Melvin I. Urofsky, We Are One!: American Jewry and Israel (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978), p. 20ff.; interview with Philip Klutznick in Chicago, April 4, 1984.] The American Jewish community now had a full-fledged “Jewish lobby.” In 1943, Silver cranked up the Zionist Organization of America's one-man lobbying operation in Washington --- renaming it the American Zionist emergency council (AZEC) --- and began to mobilize American Jewry into a mass movement.

CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from my MainSpace to appropriate talk page as my talk page tells people I do.]
What is your "reliable source" for the statement that exactly 6,000,000 people died during the camps during the Second World War. The website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which you may or may not consider a "reliable source," contains the following statement:

The estimated number of Jewish fatalities during the Holocaust is usually given as between 5.1 and 6 million victims. However, despite the availability of numerous scholarly works and archival sources on the subject, Holocaust-related figures might never be definitively known. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that the available Holocaust statistics include a wide margin of error because: •Not all victims of the Holocaust were registered. •Countless records that did exist were destroyed by the Nazis, or lost, burned, or damaged in military actions. •Records often contain fragmentary information, failing to include, for example, the victim's ethnic, national, or religious affiliation.

Thus, 6,000,000 is an estimate, and at the high end of the range at that. As the USHMM notes, we cannot know the religious affiliation of all who died. It was once thought that 4 million died at Auschwitz, but that figure has been reduced to 1.5 million. I do not deny the Holocaust. I do maintain that the exact number who died cannot be definitely known, and that many, many millions of non-Jews suffered and died in the war too. Using figures that cannot be substantiated plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what edit you are talking about. Someone elses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the categories "Conspiracy theories involving Jews", "Discrimination", "Antisemitism" are inappropriate here. If someone talking about the "Christian Lobby" in politics are they being "anti-christian"? Or are they discriminating against Christians or espousing conspiracy theories? I think not. NickCT (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed discrimination as the least supportable. Conspiracy theory and antisemitism are at least mentioned in the body. The bigger issue is lack of references just saying that Jewish Lobby is widely used as an identifier by mainstream publications, including Jewish ones may or may not exist, while refs saying its use is conspiratorial or antisemitic abound among various partisan sources. However, if this becomes a controversy I'll be motivated to look back at multiple sources of interest I found and save since last edited the article indicating that in some fashion. Just haven't been motivated to add them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is controversial, indeed contentious, if description "organized jewish influence" is appropriate. Therefore it should be alleged, not stated. -- Heptor _talk 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking that another source was used there but looking at the sources I see that allege is appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly, Haaretz just used the term.[1] To refer, unexpectedly, to J Street. --John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: reversal of this edit at this diff: Neither of the incidents is severe enough to prove any point about the term "Jewish lobby" being used in an antisemitic way; both are pretty much of same sort quoted in the paragraph above in my version. Neither incident is even mentioned in their biographies. Thus not that encyclopedic. If you think it's that important, perhaps a sentence about their being criticized for their comments could be added, again leaving the refs. But all those details just distort the article, especially when there are real antisemites who have used the phrase in an antisemitic way. Which was going to be my next addition, above the Iraq war stuff, but first I went with material that seemed relevant to what was already there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here, aside from spuriously invoking BLP. This article is about the term "Jewish lobby", the reliable sources listed there discuss the use of the term, and notable incidents that happened as a result of its use. The purpose of the article is not to expose "real antisemites who have used the phrase in an antisemitic way", it's just to reproduce what reliable sources have said about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it. What exactly is UNDUE about any of the removed text? -- Y not? 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Prominent examples of a phenomenon are not undue weight. There's no BLP issue since it is all well-sourced and relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg’s new lead sentence is: Jewish lobby is a term used to describe or allege undue Jewish influence on policy decisions and world affairs.[1][2][3]

In contrast to the longstanding lead: Jewish lobby is a term used to describe or allege organized Jewish influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, public policy, international relations, as well as business, international finance, the media, academia, and popular culture.[1][2] (Minus the unsourced “predominantly by Ashkenazi Jews living in the diaspora,” which I just noticed someone put in there at some point.)

The references used only partially support this:

• Walter John Raymond. The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms clearly does not support it.
• J.J. Goldberg’ Speech main point is to admit there is a Jewish lobby, and it has some weight, if not all powerful: So, my argument is that there is such a thing as a Jewish lobby, that the network of organizations that works together to put across what might be called the Jewish community’s view on world affairs is not insignificant, it’s not an invention, but it is not some sort of all-powerful octopus that it’s sometimes portrayed as these days. It’s a middleweight—maybe a light heavyweight.
• And, of course, the Anti-Defamation Leagues interpretation has to be identified as being from that advocacy group so the POV is clear.

Just a few from a quick news.google.archive search of "Jewish Lobby" and "powerful," as examples of another viewpoint, brought a number of WP:RS sources describing the phrase in detail:

• London Daily News: The Jewish lobby in America and the UK is of course strong and very organised and invariably wins the "ears" of the leaders of the powerful states. But we cannot allow human atrocities to continue, which provoke the very extremists that Israel is fighting to become even more determined and entrenched.
• TimesOnLine: One of the most enduring myths about American politics, a helpfully all-encompassing theory that purports to explain a bedrock feature of US foreign policy - and laced with just the faintest hint of the world's oldest hatred - is that of the all-powerful Jewish lobby...But there is a bigger reason to object to the familiar characterisation of the Jewish lobby. AIPAC is undoubtedly one of the most effective lobbying organisations in Washington. But it succeeds because very large numbers of Americans share its aims, not because it somehow strongarms politicians into supporting it. Candidates want AIPAC's approval because they know that being seen as pro-Israel is central to their foreign policy credentials.
• Telegraph: The most powerful Jewish lobby in America is facing an unprecedented threat from a rival pro-peace pressure group that is vying for the ear of President Barack Obama.
• AllHeadlineNews: President Barack Obama's controversial pick to chair the chair the U.S. National Intelligence Council withdrew his name after a barrage of criticism by the powerful Jewish lobby over his prior statements on what he thought about the prospects of peace in the Middle East...Although U.S. citizens are accustomed to exercising their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and are used to being free to express their opinions about everything, including criticizing their own government, the U.S. Jewish lobby of American citizens is known for not tolerating any criticism of the government of Israel. And that American lobby often loyally organizes attacks of anyone who does criticize Israel's government, especially if that individual is in a position to influence U.S. government policy.
• Haaretz: In the past, Israel has not made do with its leaders' persuasive efforts to ward off U.S. pressure. It tended to recruit an aggressive, powerful Jewish lobby to assist it: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Over the years, this organization became not only the lobbying extension of Israel's policy - but in many cases it forged its own independent policy, usually with a right-wing agenda, which posited that renouncing the territories posed a threat to Israel's existence. ...Recently, a new Jewish lobby has been formed, J Street, which proposes a left-wing liberal alternative to AIPAC. This is important news to both peace supporters in Israel and the U.S. Jewish community.
• USAToday: For Bush, the connection with Israel appears to run deeper than a desire to placate the powerful Jewish lobby or to curry favor among his own evangelical base, many of whom are fervent supporters of the Jewish state.
• MSNBC: Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, a Palestinian political analyst, told NBC News on Thursday that Palestinians should be pragmatic and understand the circumstances in which Obama spoke before judging his words. "Remember this is a campaign speech, and he's addressing the most powerful American Jewish lobby. Also, the Democratic nominee has to follow the lines of the party's position," said Abdul-Hadi.

So why not go back to the original lead sentence? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Because none of those sources actually say what was in the previous lede. Compare the words; none of them talk about "politics, government, public policy, international relations, as well as business, international finance, the media, academia, and popular culture". Also, you don't seem to have mentioned any policy-based reason for discounting the ADL source. On the other hand, I can't see why you would claim this source, for example, is a "WP:RS source". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Those sources make the point that the current lead is not in touch with NPOV reality. Sure a plethora of those types of NPOV/WP:RS sources have to be added to the article in order to make the article and lead conform to the reality that non-antisemitic mainstream sources use the phrase as much as, if not more, than allegedly antisemitic ones. (You remember that whole debate from 2008 that resulted in lead you reverted?)

The fact you only question one source (which I put in only because the source is used repeatedly on wikipedia, not because I myself would use it), is a good sign. And that was just the best of the first 100 of 1700 news refs using the phrase and the modifier. Out of the 6900 returns for those three words in books.google, I'm sure 20 or 30 good ones could be found. Then one could start searches using "influential." My point is that that lead obviously is POV and is the one edit most likely to make me feel it is necessary to do the relevant research and add relevant material from NPOV sources.

I've found that most advocacy groups which are considered WP:RS also usually are identified in wikipedia as being a source of information since the line between fact and opinion from such groups can be so thin. Perhaps this needs to be made more explict in WP:NPOV and WP:RS in one of the various sentences dealing with opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't comment much on the quality of the sources only because it wasn't really relevant; that particular one just jumped out as being pretty obviously not reliable. Do you have any sources for your theory that "non-antisemitic mainstream sources use the phrase as much as, if not more, than allegedly antisemitic ones"? We're looking for reliable secondary sources that discuss this view. We already have Mearsheimer and Walt stating that the Israeli media, AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents use the term; are there others that discuss its use in this way? Also, please don't make vague claims like "the current lead is not in touch with NPOV reality", or talk about the results of your google searches. We're all aware that the term gets over 100,000 google hits; as stated though, the only thing that's relevant to the article is what reliable secondary sources say about the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

When I find a source that specifically mentions non-antisemitic mainstream sources using the phrase as much as, if not more, than allegedly antisemitic ones, I'll put it in, though as discussed in past it's not likely to show up. However, obviously I provided WP:RS on the issue of the "power" of the lobby that are relevant and when feel motivated will enter them - after I analyze your changes and see what you deleted that you think justifies your new lead. My preliminary refs do indicate that the current single lead sentence which replaced a broader one is POV and ignores other definitions of and/or opinions on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Carol, to begin with, if you have any information about the Israel lobby in the United States or the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, related to its "power" or anything else, then please make sure you add it to those articles, not here. As has been discussed many times, this article is not those two articles, and their contents are not interchangeable with this one's. Next, what on earth do you imagine has been removed from the lede that was actually sourced, or had anything to do with what you're talking about? The previous lede said nothing whatsoever about the phrase being used in "non-antisemitic mainstream sources". The only parts removed were the unsourced (and unsourceable) claims that the "alleged organized Jewish influence" was "predominantly by Ashkenazi Jews living in the diaspora", and that this alleged influence occured in "politics, academics, government, public policy, international relations, as well as business, international finance, the media, academia, and popular culture." Where was all that stuff in the lede you keep talking about regarding "non-antisemitic mainstream sources us[ing] the phrase as much as, if not more, than allegedly antisemitic ones" that was supposed to have solved an imaginary "obviously POV" issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the problem is the addition of "undue" to lead sentence.
Let's review the two sentence sections in question (the other stuff removed not critical):

• Previous: Jewish lobby is a term used to describe or allege organized Jewish influence
• Jayjg’s new lead sentence: Jewish lobby is a term used to describe or allege undue Jewish influence

The second adds the word undue - stating that undue influence is the only way the word is used. The problem of course is that neither source in the definition section mentions anything about undue influence. Moreover, the sources I provide describe the lobby as powerful without saying it has "undue" influence. (And I have not definitely proposed how to use those, just providing fact such sources exist.) So a second strike there against your edit. I have a lot of other projects this week so that's about all I have to say for now. I'll be back... CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so that's what this is all about? You didn't like changing the word "organized" to "undue"? O.K., I've restored the word "organized" and changed "undue" to "disproportionate", which is a direct quote of the term used in one of the sources cited at the end of that sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Will trying to be clearer about any other problems in future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure any additions to the article avoid being analyses of primary sources. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The huge POV edit [2] was inappropriate, and was misrepresented as "replace WP:NOR based on primary sources with reliable secondary sources, re-organize logically, add sources, copyedit, etc." There's some useful stuff in that edit, though, so some of it should go back in. Also, I thought that Jayjg (talk · contribs) was barred by an ArbCom decision from editing on Israel-related topics, broadly defined. But I see that Arbcom removed those restrictions on January 6, 2011.[3]. They may have to be reinstated. --John Nagle (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a really good edit that fixed a number of issues with the previous text, and added a lot of relevant, reliably sourced, well-written and neutrally-written material. I put a large amount of effort and research into that edit, and it fully complies with NPOV (and, indeed, all other policies). Of course, if you have any objections to specific material, I'm happy to discuss those objections here, but let's not have any unsourced assertions of it being a "huge POV edit". And also, it's really not helpful to make vague and baseless threats, so let's just focus on content. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A POV part of the edit was the deletion of: "Harvard University professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 best selling book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, write that "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." The overall effect of the edit was to try to create the impression that the use of the term "Jewish Lobby" is improper or antisemitic, while in fact it's used even by AIPAC, which identifies itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby". There's more, but I'll let someone else dig through that big edit. Most of the changes to the lede, other sticking in "undue", were an improvement, though. --John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Israel and Jewish are not the same thing. Please don't confuse them. (Although I can understand where this confusion sometimes come from, there are a large number of groups with very different opinions who think they benefit from this confusion). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

John, that material wasn't deleted, it was just moved a more relevant location. Of course, I did remove the phrase "best selling", that's just puffery that actually isn't relevant to the subject of this article, but the rest is still there. It would have been helpful if you had actually read the newer version with an open mind, rather than just reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to head to bed, but a quick few comments about this edit: I haven't reviewed it in detail (it certainly is a large edit) but it overall looks like an improvement and I don't see any obvious OR. I suggest that we keep this and if necessary modify specific pieces one at a time, and discuss here specific objections, if any. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've backed it out, but am putting back in the noncontroversial parts. It's the deletions of references that concern me the most. There were four more deletions around "Louise Branson". Jayjg put in some new references, related mainly to European usage of the term. Those should perhaps go in a European section. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a fair bit more than that, and the "European usage of the term" material replaced the "around Louise Branson" stuff, because I used secondary sources rather than cobbling together arguments based on primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we've had a big deletion of at least six cited references. We'll have to deal with this. More later. --John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

John, any "cited references" that were removed were exactly what was described at the top of this section: WP:NOR based on primary sources. I made sure to replace any of that material, though, with reliable secondary sources that discussed how the term is used, as mentioned above. Please keep in mind that a citation doesn't make material sacrosanct and eternal, impervious to removal. Even cited material can (and all too often does) violate content policies, such as WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE, and cited material must also be be relevant. The best way to "deal with this" is to discuss any concerns here, and to only propose changes that comply with the content policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and changes have to comply with the WP:MOS as well. For example, when you reverted, you restored to the links to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and Antisemitism in the "See also" section, and subsequently indicated that the only issue with them was italics around the former.[4] However, these two articles are already prominently linked in the article itself. As WP:SEEALSO states Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section. My edit was very careful to comply with all policies and guidelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One big edit is always problematic and will take time for me to sort through. (Worse if you have a couple issues to bring to a noticeboard, since so difficult for noninvolved editors to make their way through.) Meanwhile, does anyone know how to put the template on the main page of the article with big red stop sign to remind people article is now 1RR? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a big edit like you made to the article a few hours before mine? Also, there is (and should be) no "big red stop sign to remind people article is now 1RR" on the article page. It's on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and everyone here is aware of it. Articles don't have scarlet letters on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did two edits in one section; perhaps not perfect. But not an excuse to rewrite the whole article in order to change the very definition of the phrase like you did. And one agreed upon for several years, including in mediation that touched on that topic among others. Or have you forgotten the mediation? However, given that the article had barely 2000 hits last month and I could get more hits a month if I put my own article on that an a lot of other topics on my own web pages, is it really worth arguing with you about it? (Why didn't I think of that several years ago?) Maybe just a report to NPOV and let other wikipedians decide if NPOV matters any more in Ethnic Conflict articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I neither "re-wrote the whole article" nor did I "change the very definition of the phrase"! Most of what I did was re-organizing some of the material, adding some sources and headings, and fixing footnotes. Also this is not an "Ethnic Conflict article" (it's hardly even an I-P article), and despite your repeated invocation of "NPOV", there has been no evidence whatsoever of any NPOV issues in the current text. Carol, you really must stop making these unsourced and inaccurate claims; Talk pages are for dealing with specific issues with the article text, not soapboxes for vague accusations. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

[Insert] This diff may look like more of a massive rewrite than it is; but given the POV of adding "undue" to the lead, and other things I've seen in quick read through, plus Nagle's criticisms, looks pretty "re-writy" to me. But definitive analysis will have to wait til the weekend, unless I get some free time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, so it was the change of one word, then? As for "Nagle's criticisms", the main one was his claim that I deleted a sentence that I actually didn't delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And look around, a lot of the I-P Arbitration articles have a big scarlet stop sign on them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a couple of examples of a "big red stop sign to remind people article is now 1RR" on an I-P article pages? I looked, but was unable to find any. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See big read 1rr warning/stop sign that happens when one tries to edit this article or this article. An admin put that up so maybe only admins can put them up. Still waiting for clarification on that elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. It's actually just a warning that appears when you edit. Well, as said, this article doesn't need that, since it's barely even an I-P article to begin with, and everyone here knows about the 1RR restriction. That warning is obviously for new or unfamiliar editors editing high profile articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Even experienced editors in a hurry can forget about 1rr and end up with a block. So it is useful. Don't delete it when it finally makes its appearance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review my previous comments, and please don't try to add this obtrusive, off-topic, and unnecessary template. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:JoshuaZ removed a "US Lobby" template, and User:Carolmooredc reverted it back in. I'm having difficult seeing why it belongs here, though. This article isn't about an actual American lobby, it's about a term that some people use to mean "Israel lobby" and/or imply a conspiracy of Jews. Also, the many references in the article to other countries make it clear that the term is not specifically American or about the United States. Is there any good reason this template should remain? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't even notice the template was here until it broke. I removed the template for essentially similar reasons to yours (it is about lobbying in the formal sense of the word). I then looked over and fixed the template. So, while it is now functioning, it doesn't quite make sense here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a section on "activities." And note that the references are all 3 years old or older. For some reason after "J Street" started operating the phrase started popping up even more in mainstream media to discuss pro-Israel lobbying, including with more descriptions of what a "Jewish lobby" is that would be appropriate for this article. (Don't have time to supply such refs now.) I personally don't like the term for pro-Israel lobbying and think it would be nice if it was used only to describe non-Israel related lobbying by various Jewish groups on issues of interest to them or in general. (Just like "Catholic lobby" or "Hindu lobby" could be used.)

But tell that to all the mainstream media - including in Israel - that bandy it about freely. As long as they keep using it and describing what it is and what it does as a "lobby" the fact there is such a lobby remains relevant and therefore deserves a lobbying template. Obviously there are antisemites using the phrase in a pejorative way and that should be recognized. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post recently referred to J Street as the "leftist American Jewish lobby."[5]. An Israeli Government minister is annoyed that one of the opposition parties wrote a letter saying something favorable about J Street. So the phrase is being used in the Israeli press now. --John Nagle (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection. That's describing J Street, a specific group which is Jewish. That's not the same use of the term "Jewish lobby" as it is generally used or how this article means it, meaning an amorphous collection of organizations or people who are claimed to have undue influence, etc. not at at all a lobby in the normal sense of the word; the article is about the term as it is used, not specific groups .The US Lobby template would make sense on the main article for J Street, not here. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ. The comments you are making aren't really relevant to the points initially raised in this thread. Yes, we know that various sources use the phrase "Jewish lobby" to refer to either the Israel lobby, or to various lobbying groups, or to allege Jewish conspiracies. And the article already states that the Israeli press, for example, uses the phrase. But this article is about the use of the term; who uses it, how they use it, and various assessments or reactions to that. It's not about any specific lobbies, such as J Street, or the broad Israel lobby in the United States etc. Thus, while the template may well belong in those articles about actual lobbies, it doesn't belong in this article about a term/phrase, and no rationale has been presented to retain it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First, JoshuaZ, I assume you have read Jayjg's comment above and realize article is NOT only about, as you put it meaning an amorphous collection of organizations or people who are claimed to have undue influence.

Second, Jayjg, I don't think it's up to wikipedia editors to narrow the scope of an article if WP:RS have a broader one. Jayjg writes: this article is about the use of the term; who uses it, how they use it, and various assessments or reactions to that. Then the article should be called "Jewish lobby (use of the term)." Of course many would think that a POV fork. And maybe "Use of the term" needs to be an explicit subsection (not that I have a specific suggestion).

Now I personally prefer not to use it if talking about the pro-Israel lobby but think its acceptable talking about Jews lobbying together against, say, some obviously antisemtic law or for greater police protection were there antisemitic attacks, etc. Maybe you do not even like the latter use. But it's not our personal preferences that matter in wikipedia, but how reliable sources define and use the term/concept/etc. I don't feel like arguing that point any more right now; we can do it more and bring it to a larger forum if we can't consense when I add relevant material in the future.

At this point I won't argue any more to keep the template, since I won't have more to add for another week or so. But in the future should I or others add further information is added on actual lobbying by groups described in detail as - or describing themselves as - "Jewish lobby" (including to update the article from its 2008 status), I would support putting it back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Carol, we haven't "narrowed the scope" of this article in any way; however, one cannot have two articles on the same topic, which has been a persistent issue with this article. This article is about the term "Jewish lobby", not about the Israel lobby in the United States. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense. J Street is in a clearly different category. It is a Jewish lobbying group. Hence the two words happen to together. That's not the same thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jayjg writes: "this article is about the use of the term; who uses it, how they use it, and various assessments or reactions to that." Didn't that issue come up in one of Jayjg's arbitrations? --John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've participated in over 130 arbitrations. Please stop focusing on me, or even mentioning me, and instead focus solely on article content, per WP:NPA and WP:TPG#YES. I haven't seen any arguments yet for keeping the template. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: I really don't understand your point; what is not the same thing as what? Though note that J Street says it's not just a Jewish lobbying group.

Jayjg: I am not proposing that we detail what the Israel lobby does in this article. I am saying that the fact that the term is used frequently by mainstream media to designate pro-Israel lobbying has to be recognized if done so in appropriate fashion by WP:RS, and I believe I have found a few, not necessarily those mentioned above. But until we have actual edits entered into text to debate over, we are just debating generalities.

John Nagle: "one of Jayjg's arbitrations?" It came up in mediation here; I don't know if it was a topic in other problems/issues of April 2009. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Carol, we're discussing the removal of the inappropriate template, which you reverted back in. That's an "actual edit entered into text to debate over". However, since you say there's no longer any debate over this, I'll remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"No longer any debate over this?" I don't think so. We have {{user|Jayjg|| claiming that the "Jewish lobby" is not a lobby. That's a bit much. (Amusing note for today: if you search Google for "Jewish Lobby", AIPAC comes up near the top of the results.) --John Nagle (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

John, stop focusing on me. That means, rather than making inaccurate or misleading comments (to some invisible audience) about me, or even mentioning me here, instead focus solely on article content, per WP:NPA and WP:TPG#YES, and address the specific content issues raised here. The fact that the phrase "Jewish lobby" exists, and is used in various ways, is not in question. Is it your contention that "Jewish lobby" is a synonym for AIPAC? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Us lobby clearly does not belong as its been explained above. I added the appropriate {{Antisemitism}} template as it reflects the articles sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

An "Antisemitism" template seems inappropriate here. That should be discussed here first. Putting it down in the section that discusses the claim that it's antisemitic is more appropriate, though. --John Nagle (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I clearly said we did not need to debate whether "we detail what the Israel lobby does in this article." since I was not proposing that, as you inaccurately claimed. Earlier I said first As long as they keep using it and describing what it is and what it does as a "lobby" the fact there is such a lobby remains relevant and therefore deserves a lobbying template.(16 March) Then I got tired of debating it and wrote At this point I won't argue any more to keep the template, since I won't have more to add for another week or so. But in the future should I or others add further information is added on actual lobbying by groups described in detail as - or describing themselves as - "Jewish lobby" (including to update the article from its 2008 status), I would support putting it back.(17 March) But John Nagle's argument that it's absurd not to have the template - again given the fact that mainstream media so often DO use it. Being tired of arguing isn't an argument, after all. But maybe we need outside NPOV opinions on this NPOV issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With increased editing and talk activity, I lengthened the resulting fore-shortened lede. While agreeing with the removal of OR from there, it still seemed insufficient to cover requirements and content. The edit summary states: "BOLD rewrite of lede; improve per MOS, existing refs, content, its organization and necessary context (legitimacy of how, where, by whom, and better highlight included differences). See talk" I also removed the ref cites. It does reflect however, a basic AGF assumption that there are legitimate usages of the term, characterized in the first sentence, and those less-so in the second. Is there a consensus for this basic assumption? If questions of wording arise, I am prepared to discuss the specific phrases chosen; that's how it got to where it now stands. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Given it's a controversial topic you need refs - preferably with quote from source - for every contention here: conducted by predominantly Ashkenazi Jews living in their diaspora in a number of Western countries. While at times self-described, usage of the term to allege disproportionate Jewish influence leads to stereotyping, and can be perceived as pejorative or may constitute antisemitism. With changes over time, more recent usage of the term is also viewed as inaccurate. Second two sentences both a bit weasel word and/or confusing/unclear. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable at first glance. A 'bot had to rescue a reference, though, so check the references. --John Nagle (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad effort. I removed the Ashkenazi Jews part, since none of the sources mentioned Ashkenazi Jews. I also removed the phrase "more recent usage of the term", since none of the sources discussed that, and it's not (in my view) particularly accurate. Also, I did some copyediting; for example, your version basically defined "Jewish lobby" as "Jewish lobbying", which is circular, so I changed that to "lobbying by Jews". Regarding your question, though, I would say that there really aren't many "legitimate usages" of the term these days, which is why people keep getting into hot water for using it, particularly when they mean "Israel lobby". Contrary to Carol's assertion, however, you don't need citations for everything in the lede, you really just need to make sure it's cited in the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just changed "lobbying by Jews" to "lobbying attributed to Jews", which is a far more NPOV and accurate way of summarizing what the phrase means. That pretty much covers all uses, whether accurate, inaccurate, neutral, antisemitic, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that went well overall. From the changes in the first sentence, I'll assume we have the legitimacy consensus I noted, even though few responses were given. The first change there started as organized Jewish lobbying and became lobbying attributed to Jews. That seems ok except for the loss of 'organized', which has been resident in most past lede versions, as 'or allege organized Jewish influence'. It remains a relevant word, given all the organizations on the page, so I reworked it into organized lobbying attributed to Jews. Other changes made are the loss of the Ashkenazi link, rightly noted it as not yet on the page, and the usage of 'their' diaspora, which is already ref'd on the page, from Youssef Ibrahim, but in poor context for now. However, since other diasporic/ethic lobbies exist, the pipe was removed. I don't have much to say on the second sentence, except stereotyping is already ref'd but not cited on the page; BB-Au states, "Another manifestation of the stereotyping takes the form of equating all Jews with the so-called Jewish lobby." Maybe it could be worked in. I do have some trouble with the deletion of the third sentence and the attendant co-mingling of 'inaccurate' with those 'antisemitic and/or pejorative'; the article's organization clearly indicates these are validly separate and had I attempted to reflect that. Admittedly the 'changes over time' transition is not yet sufficiently included, but just based on content, it deserves to stand on its own. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I agree that usage of the term has become less legit and easily included among those 'changes over time' which fell out. Most sources agree too, but as pointed out, until that transition material is on the page, it is hard to get it into the lede. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of this language: While at times self-described, usage of the term is viewed as inaccurate, and – particularly when used to allege disproportionate Jewish influence – it can be perceived as pejorative or may constitute antisemitism. It was blanked without comment or summary. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

I have changed them to:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Jewish lobby/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 17.9 KB I have set the time setting to a relatively moderate 30 days but a higher value might be considered. Gregkaye (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to add that I appreciate that some admin type Wikipedia pages have low level settings in "minthreadsleft" and, in this context, I can understand how a low level setting might have been installed here.
  

In my pov, talk pages like this connect to subjects to which a wide variety of views may be ascribed. It seems to me that adequate space should be given for the address of relevant issues and by a variety of editors. Gregkaye (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish lobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lawac.org/speech/pre%20sept%2004%20speeches/goldberg%202004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430213003/http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins to http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)