Talk:J Street/Archive 1

Help

Help me fill this page out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacgol (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2008

Similarity between Independent Jewish Voices and J Street

Independent Jewish Voices, which is based in the UK, appears to be similar to this new American J Street group in motivation and purpose in my opinion. I am surprised that no one has made the explicit comparison yet. --John Bahrain (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

J Street is very new. There are several older American Jewish groups that are analogous to IJV, such as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and Jewish Voice for Peace. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

j street aipac and 4 more is a 6pack

not all jews agree on everything except maybe israels existance security and the holocaust.It shows the world that jews and israels have internal debate discussion and dont have a singlemind. Jews are openminded nonracist. Maybe more pacs will start in europe or in south america. Who knows? If israel continues as a leading technological country.maybe 1 day americans will lobby israeli politicians to help the states get what it needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia fluent (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Should the video be linked from the article?

There is this video released by J Street:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W8TN5Rs_5sk

Should we find someplace to link it in the article? --John Bahrain (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is category appropriate?

Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups

?? --John Bahrain (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First lobbying accomplishment

JStreet is announcing their first accomplishment as a lobby: "We did it! John McCain renounced Hagee!" [1]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

J Street announces its first endorsements - can someone add this to the article?

I'm don't have time to add this properly to the article right now, but this is significant and thus I am sharing it here on the talk page:

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109066.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait another news cycle. The US morning papers haven't had a chance to report this yet. --John Nagle (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New York Times advertizement

I think it is a smart ad:

http://www.jstreet.org/files/images/Jstreet_nytimesad.pdf

It ran in the paper on Monday, June 23rd I believe?

--John Bahrain (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Nation on J Street

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/333779/to_israel_via_j_street --John Bahrain (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

new republic article

I have add to external link article of the new republic. This article was mention in Haaretz as well. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078 I have not published Haaretz article as I think the best is to publish the source.In any case there are no laws in wikipedia against blog.

The relevant Wikipedia policy is about reliability, not what a newspaper calls their column. When editors deride "blogs" they mean self-published blogs, not blogs that are reviewed by a professional and accountable team of editors like that in Haaretz. MantisEars (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This refer to source and not to external links.Oren.tal (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

moreover according to wikipedia Wikipedia:External links:External links you can put article even if it is not from reliable source.It say "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.".Apart from that this is the new republic blog and not private blog so it is reliable.Oren.tal (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

moreover it say about blog: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.".it was written by the new republic.Oren.tal (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. When did James Kirchik or The New Republic (an opinion journal) become recognized authorities on J Street? The exception is intended for a recognized authority who writes about her/his own fields, such as James R. Davila, who blogs at Paleojudaica, not for an editorialist who blogs about whatever's on her/his mind. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For that one, Rosner, in Haaretz, is just linking and quoting. Nightmare on J Street in the New Republic's blog is the item in question. James Kirchick is stating his opinion. Not sure how notable he is; here's his bio: [2] He's probably not the best exemplar of the anti-J Street position. --John Nagle (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The link in question (to the New Republic blog) was added as an external link to the article yesterday. I removed it as an inappropriate link to a blog. This discussion came up today and my removal was reverted. I still think the blog link is inappropriate. There's no indication in his own bio that Kirchik has any special knowledge about J Street or Israel or Palestine; there's no way he can be considered a "recognized authority". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

it is link from news website.In general external links don't have to be reliable sources but relevant.blos should have some authority and this is indeed not private blog.it has the authority of the the new republic.Oren.tal (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz if you have checked his articles then you have seen more than one about Israel.Oren.tal (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how often Kirchik blogs about Israel, it doesn't make him a recognized authority. Nor does the fact that he's hosted by The New Republic. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of making it an external link. If Kirchick supports some point that is relevant to the entry, you could make that point in the entry and link to the blog. But this external link merely drops you in the middle of a debate that is not very clear if you haven't been following it in Haaretz, etc. A broad conservative analysis of J Street might be suitable for an external link, but not this arcane debate, IMO. Nbauman (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 21#Recognized authority? for a brief discussion concerning what might make a person a recognized authority. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

the fact that he is writer for the new republic.Blog that belong to newspaepr like the Guardian,the new republic and generally to newspaper have the authority of the news paper,not everyone can write in such blog.You and I can not write in the blog of the new republic.It is NOT free blog.You can consider it as opinion article of the new republic.It is very clear that the new republic stand behind this.Oren.tal (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nbauman that is my point.Extrenal link doesn't have to be reliable but relevant.Oren.tal (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz there should be also different between private blog or blog in google or wordpress and "blog" that belong to news website like CNN,the Guardian or the new republic.Guardian "comment is free" articles belong to "blog" and yet worth to be link to.Oren.tal (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's relevant either. This seems to be nothing more than an exercise in clever name-calling. I read Kirchick's blog post at least 3 times now, and I would like to see someone summarize his point in a simple sentence. (One difference between the New Republic and the New Republic blogs is that the blogs don't have an editor.)

In summary, I don't think it belongs because (1) It's a blog, which means it has to overcome a WP presumption against blogs (2) It doesn't say anything important (or even coherent) (3) It doesn't meet WP:EL and WP:ELNO

I'm going to delete it because it doesn't meet WP:EL and WP:ELNO. If somebody wants to keep it in, they have to give a good reason why it meets WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Nbauman (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because this is article about J street.He bring point about the gap between the Jewish (american and Israelis) view and J street view.He claim that it is different.Second it is article that belong to the new republic. and it meet WP:EL when it say not to include blog Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.The new republic is recognized authority and so is this writer.Oren.tal (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The entry already summarizes Kirchick's argument and links to his blog. The only question is whether there should be a separate link to his blog in the External links section. I don't see anything in WP:EL that justifies the separate external link. Nbauman (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean with separate external link? there is just one link to this article.This is an article that was quote in Haaretz and host in the new republic.it is worth external link because the article is relevant.Oren.tal (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) Footnote 13 is a link to a column by Kirchick.

(2) Have you read any of Nbauman's messages? Why don't you respond to the issues raised in them instead of repeating yourself? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kirchick acknowledged that some of the positions he attributed to J Street were incorrect. So much for the notion that a New Republic blog is subject to fact-checking. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if nothing else, this dust-up deserves to go in Kirchick's Wikipedia article because it is representative of his views. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Letter of support from prominent Israeli leaders

This section seems to me superfluous, both the long list of names and the reproduction of the letter itself, and a pretty good case for removal under WP:NOT. The letter could easily be mentioned in an earlier paragraph, and it could be included in the external links. Since this would be a rather large deletion of material, I am mentioning it here first just to see if anybody agrees or disagrees first. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit long, I agree. I would still suggest keeping the most prominent names, but they can be inlined into a sentence and we can link to the contents of the letter. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I kept most of the names of people with existing Wikipedia entries, removed text of the letter but preserved the citation, and moved the remaining paragraph further up to the "Political vision" section, which I think makes the most sense. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This letter of support belongs to different section. --Rm125 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Founder of J Street's father was in Irgun

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/11/j-streets-founder-is-also-son-of-irgun.html This is relevant in part because of the Rahm Emanuel controversy. This would go better if we had a separate article on the founder of J Street. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kirchik and Membership

I don't see why Kirchik, of all the people mentioned in the article, should be tagged with a right-wing ideological label, so I deleted that.

Also, I think it would be interesting to know how many members J Street has. If J Street won't reveal that information, that would be good to know, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.198 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is any other organization asked to reveal that information? 70.19.64.237 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Article is a POV Press Release

The entire article reads like a J Street press release, from the "meaningful" in the first sentence to the use of the pejorative "neocons" for neo-conservative. Would it be neutral to describe J Streeters as "radiclibs"?

The article needs a Controversies section, especially after they ran flack for Mary Robinson's Medal of Freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Link please on J Street's flacking for Mary Robinson? I don't think that's actually true. 70.19.64.237 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Partial list of donors

I'm removing a "partial list of donors" that included non-notable people whose contributions, according to the source, made up a "small fraction" of J Street's fund-raising activities. If somebody wants to make up a representative list of donors, maybe that's appropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Donors partial list

Malik Shabbaz, looks like you follow me anyway I go. I know Jewish issues are fascinating and I interested since I am Jewish. Not that I am obbsessed about it but the fact I am here. I am happy you are interested in Jewish affairs too. Now to the point. I already asked you to discuss issues not to revert. If you ask me I consider it a rude behaviour and unfortunately it repeats itself. Well I guess I have to handle it. Malik once again I simply gave an available information- no bad faith just facts. If you aware of other contributors I appreciate if you can do your own research not to DESTROY others. If you claim I am doing it in bad faith why don't you give A DETAILED explanation of your "ideas" instead of vandalizing?--Rm125 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I've been editing this page since April 2008. If anything, it looks like you followed me here.

2) Please post your comments at the bottom of the page. You'll see that I already wrote why the list was removed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - Stop referring to good-faith differences of opinion as vandalism. Read WP:VANDALISM to learn more about what vandalism is and isn't. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Rm125, please explain why these particular donors are notable and worthy of mention in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean This is NOT a relevant question at all. There is reliable newspapet. There is an article. In the article there is information. The information is relevant. There is NO reason to believe that there is a mistake in the article. The title clearly says the list is partial and can be updated and/or changed as information comes in. This is THE SAME process that other articles are updated. If you have a relevant information please contribute and it will be a good deed. If you find anything illogical here please let me know. I appritiate if you can provide more mames and/or organizations who donate money to J Street. Some people find it easy to attack others and erase their work us seremoniausly instead of investing some time amd do something useful. sean don't take it personally. please.I am annoyed because as you can see I invest time and good will into communicating according to Wikipedia suggestions but Malik Shabbazz just pushes the button and eraze everything. I like to do business with gemtelmen. Unfortunately so far I am out of luck. --Rm125 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if you have some more information about donors to J Street please let me know. I am doing a research online and otherwice by internet. Somebody told me that he will email me some information so I can update. Meanwhile I need some more help from you or other interested individuals. Thanks, --Rm125 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood but my view is that it is a relevant question in the sense that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so the presence of information in an RS does not in itself automatically make it worthy of inclusion in an article. What I find a bit illogical is that it is not at all clear to the reader why this information is notable within the context of the overall funding of J Street. What is it's significance ? If it is significant for some reason according to an RS then we should be explaining why it is significant. Does it contradict something J Street have said ? Does it compromise their objectives in some way etc etc. As far as I can tell, the significance comes from the fact that it's unusual for Arabs and Muslims to fund pro-Israel lobby groups. The info as it stands is essentially fact picking and it's on that basis that I think it shouldn't be there in it's present very detailed form. JPost can fact pick because that's there job, to sell news, but we're supposed to be providing a balanced, neutral set of pertinent information about the subject. I don't think that is what we are doing here. J Street themselves provide a whole bunch of names of people who have made substantial contributions. I don't think the article should include all of their details along with their nationality, religious views and job histories. If we are going to mention this isn't it enough to mention that according to JPost J Street receives approximately 3% of it's funding from Arab and Muslim donors ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for your thoughts. You are asking a relevant question and it deserves a yhorough answer.

" why this information is notable within the context of the overall funding of J Street. What is it's significance ? "

Sean, J Street is a PAC that SUPPORTS ISRAEL by their own admittion. THIS IS A PRO ISRAELI ORGANIZATION. When you have Muslims that are representing/donating/associating/promoting organizations that are not friendly/potentially hostile/opposing/supporting opponents or enemies of Israel it is is a big deal. For example ( extreme but right in principle} If you have an organization that support recognition of Turkish war crimes against Armenians and Muslim nationalists donate to this orgsanization it obviously a contradiction. Espessially if one donates to both seemingly opposite coases. Another example. If a liberal fighter for human rights donates/supports/identified himsself with David Duke/ Mein Kamf/Black September you would find it intreaging. The besr example i can give is LIVE. Go to Jerusalem Post website and see if this fact is relevant or not. Seeing is believing. BTW can you help with my donor research in order to update this section? Thanks and all the best. --Rm125 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean about" neutral views" I don't understand . The post mentions that it is a SMALL portion of donors. There is no problem here in my opinion. All points of view are covered fairly. Just because the list is uncomplete it doesn't mean it is FORBIDDEN to publish available lisy so far. Once again if there is an updated list in your posession please do me a favor and publish yhis list. I encorage you to provide ALL AVAILABLE INFO. Thanks for your involvment and intelligent questions. --Rm125 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the first sensible thing you've written: "I don't understand". The article already mentions that J Street received tens of thousands of dollars from Arab and Muslim donors. There is absolutely no need to list the names of those donors, especially since the source says they make up both a small fraction of the total number of donors and a small percentage of the total fund-raising.

Please read some of our core policies, including WP:NPOV. Just because something is in a newspaper doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article, and it is your responsibility to explain why it belongs. So far, two of us have raised concerns about this section and you have yet to provide a persuasive argument. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, as I said, I don't support this detailed information being in the article and I don't support adding even more detailed information like this about donors based on whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist, Israeli, Yemeni, Korean, ex-Mossad staff/ex-senior IDF staff or any particular attribute that may be significant to someone because of their personal perspective about people with these attributes.

The notion that Arabs, Muslims, Iranians or people associated with them or people who have worked in certain countries etc donating to a pro-Israel organisation is "obviously a contradiction" because these people could conceivably be "enemies of Israel" is not objective. Subjective "obviously a contradiction" arguments like that could also be applied to the ex-Mossad staff/ex-senior IDF staff who support J Street by people with a different point of view.

I support Malik's current revision which says "Records indicate that dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans and Iranian advocacy organizations donated tens of thousands of dollars to J Street, representing "a small fraction" of the group's fund-raising". Personally I think it would be better if it incoporated J Street's estimate of the actual figure i.e. <3% and mentioned the rarity of Arab/Muslim donations to pro-Israel lobby groups. I also think J Street opinion that these donations "show the broad appeal of J Street's message and its commitment to coexistence" could be included, attributed directly to them of course. It would then be appropriate to balance this with some attributed opinions/comments from the JPost article like Lenny Ben-David's view that "J Street loses some of its credibility in claiming it is pro-Israel and representing the Jewish community" etc. This is what I mean about being neutral, provide the facts (<3%), don't fact pick details about donors based on subjective criteria, provide the opinions of parties on both side of the issue and attribute those opinions to them i.e. don't present them as facts. Of course, if we had a broad overview of J Street's funding i.e. how much from the US, Israel, EU etc etc it would be great but I doubt that that is available. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)...also, I'm guessing but I would have thought that a lot more than 3% of Israeli tax payers who fund the Israeli government itself are Arabs given that ~20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs (many of which describe themselves as Palestinian nationals/Israeli citizens). Looking at it that way J Street's 3% is pretty low. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to say that I totally agree with you. I just paid attention to the fact that this fact was mentioned twice- both the list and the current description thay I made. It absolutely doesn't make sence to have them both.The confusion accured because Malik reverted without discussing first, the I reverted back and added the list without noticing that another statement already exists. This confusion can be eliminated once we can discuss the issue first and not engage in edit wars. I think this is more civilized and will contribute a lot to our work.

Also statements by Malik like: :That's the first sensible thing you've written: "I don't understand". " will NOT contribute to our discussions in the future - this is my humble opinion.

I would like to ask from my fellow Wikipedians to keep things civil and respectful. This is the only way to elevate the level of discussion. Personal insults are not helpful. Let's not permit our ego control our actions but rely on common sense. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is "Seven Jewish Children is "widely believed to bean anti Semitic play?

Malik, I provided zillion links. I noticed that you revert many things without ANY justification. THIS IS AGAINST THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. Malik, the rules say that you must engage in discussion and justify your actions. I already asked you many times and I ask you GAIN. Please act according to the RULES. P-L-E-A-C-E --Rm125 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you before. PLEASE STOP SHOUTING.

When I reverted, there was only one source and it does not support the allegation that many people call Seven Jewish Children antisemitic.

Finally, please read edit other editors' edit summaries. Mine said "remove weasel words". Please read WP:WEASEL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I SHOUT because you don't lesten. All I say and always say is: Please justify everything you do on the discussion board first instead of engaging in meaningless revertings back and forth.Let's not play like children in the sand box when their perent is not there. I hope we can grow up and behave like responsible adults.

To just give you an example of respectful behaviour: You can say specifically that you eraze "widely believed" and replace it with his opinion only. You can say on the discussion board that you change it because there is not enaugh links/referenses/ justifications. This can be understood and corrected. Anyone who reads this will underrstand that you care about accuracy of the article NOT NARROW POLITICAL AGENDA .

Malik, All I ask is to properly discuss the issues on the board first and let people decide.

Is it something that makes sense? If not please let me know. All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

1) There is never a need to shout.

2) My edit summary said all that in three words. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Arab Donations to J Street

The article centers around the unusual fact that most Jewish political action committees do not receive support from arab or islamic donors. This is presented as criticism and should be in the the section about 'Public Reaction' not (just) in a section on 'Activities'. Placing it in activities and scrubbing the criticism does not improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please attribute the criticism. See WP:WEASEL. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also balance it with J Street's response i.e. they see it as a positive thing. Are they a "Jewish organization" ? Isn't pro-Israel more accurate ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In their own "About Us" section of their website they state that they represent "primarily" Jewish individuals. That seems pretty definitive. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitive would then be to state in the article that they repesent "primarily Jewish individuals" or something like that or call them pro-Israel which is how they self-describe J Street. A "womens organization" will imply 100% women to many people. Calling J Street a Jewish organization when they don't call themselves one or without the majority of RS describing them that way seems inconsistent with WP:V.Sean.hoyland - talk 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the fact that a businessman who is heavily involved with anti Israel Lobby and donates at the same time to Israeli Lobbi is a worthy news.. Let me think.. Looks like a big scandal to me. Just look at this:

Amideast It was founded as the American Friends of the Middle East, part of the Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. It continued to act as an anti-Israel lobbying group

Arab American Institute is a non-profit membership organization based in Washington D.C. that focuses on the issues and interests of Arab-Americans nationwide. James Zogby, brother of pollster John Zogby, is founder and president of the AAI. The organization seeks to increase the visibility of Arab-American involvement and candidates in the American political system. They issue "Action Alerts" to their members much like the Anti-defamation League when issues of particular concern arise. According to their website they encourage their members to contact Members of Congress and they develop policy initiatives much in the manner of a think tank

National Iranian American Council Originally formed to encourage Iranian American participation in American civic life, in 2006, the organization's membership voted to take a stance and to publicly oppose US military intervention in Iran.

If Ben Ami doesn't see a contradiction here is worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia because it is important fact. --Rm125 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's all original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Glick

I reverted here. The original edit summary said "Quote by Caroline Glick. WP is governed by policies and not by references to other articles, who may be badly structured themselves, or difficult to compare". As a native English speaker familiar with WP policies I don't understand this summary. I reverted again here having read it again as advised without success. What are the policies being referred to in the edit summary ? "According to Caroline Glick" refers to the source cited not the Caroline Glick WP article so the statement "and not by references to other articles" makes no sense. Any thoughts anyone ? I personally don't care where the section goes. I'm reverting purely on the basis that the edit summary doesn't explain the move. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonund wants the paragraph, which describes Glick's criticism of J Street, in the "Political vision" section and I believe it belongs in "Public response" with all the other comments about J Street. His edit summary only makes sense if you've read his prior edit summaries and my responses, also in edit summaries. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight / Stealth reversions

Editor Rm125 added a great deal of information from a recent Jerusalem Post article that is already the source of three paragraphs in this article. Some of what he added was repeated elsewhere in the article, and all of it is giving a single source undue weight.

I reverted his edits with the summary "Repetitive -- that information is largely elsewhere in the article -- and undue weight to a single news article".

Rm125 essentially reverted with deceptive edit summaries of "add--~~~~".

I would like him to explain why he thinks it's appropriate to (a) repeat the same information twice in the article and (b) give so much weight to a single source. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not proper to repeat information twice. I don't desigree with you on that point.I tried to rewrite some parts to the best of my ability. If it repeats twice you are welcome to revert. As to undue weight this is a ligitimate point. I am open to your advise but please be specific. Thanks, Malik. --Rm125 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the information that was repetitive, and you reverted my changes. So please don't say you don't disagree with me, because you say one thing and do another. I'm going to delete the repetitive information again. If you "don't desigree" with me, please don't revert my changes again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you cannot be trusted. You say one thing ("I don't desigree with you", "If it repeats twice you are welcome to revert", "As to undue weight this is a ligitimate point"), but you reverted anyway. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, another point as to why this article is a weightly sourse. As you can see for yourself this article has lots of very detailed and important information with specific data, respnses, opinions and much more. Some articles ahas very questionable value and don't have too much weight but not this one. I think the most relevant point is if the informationn given is contributing to one's understanding of the nature of the subject of our concern and gives an accurate and in defth picture. I hope with your help we can create good and well balanced J Street page --Rm125 (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article is already the source of three substantial paragraphs. At this point, you're only using it to make a point. The article isn't as earth-shattering as you think. The identities of a very small number of J Street's donors have led some conservative Jewish leaders to complain. That's what the article is about. Not much more. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik once again about "deceptive edit summaries ". I am sorry you think in this terms. This is not my intention at all. In fact I think the sourse of our arguments are mostly misunderstandings.If you would only be more specific and provide your own opinions rather then some kind of WP " mambo-jumbo we would understand each other much better.It reminds me a joke abour a lawer who through a law book at the judge and told him to read it himself.. --Rm125 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained above. You reverted my changes with edit summaries of "add--~~~~". Those were deceptive because you weren't honest about the fact you were reverting. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

About "deceptive edit summaries " and "dishonesty" accusation by Malik Shabazz.

About Malik Accusations

Unfortunately Malik continue ti engage in name calling witch is AGAINST a specific Wikipedia regulation that stress polite behaviour and recommends to discuss any issues of concern on the discussion board. I have demonstrated many times mt willingness to behave in respectful manner. Unfortunayely I get insults and mistreatment from Malik. I am not a complainer and not going shout and scream here. Instead I decided engage in respectful discussion on this board and let other Wikipedians judge for themselves if this level of discussion is proper or not. --Rm125 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you've done nothing but shout and whine. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL --Rm125 (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

J Street is "primarily but not exclusively Jewish

Malik, you have reverted this quote but it is in the sourse and IS important in order to understand J Street structue.It comes from the "Big cigar" himself and therefore has validity in my opinion. I reverted. --Rm125 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the quote has nothing to do with J Street's vision. It describes its membership. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary.This is a statement of vision in an organization. As you know a vision or a founding philosopy of any organization includes includes a so called a statement of nature of an organization. by all definitions is constitutes a nature of an organisation rather then membership list. If you will investigate and get familiar with sstuctures and founding principals of corporation (aspecially non profit} you will agree with me --Rm125 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the quote and then re-read my message. If you will investigate and get familiar with the facts you will see why the statement relates to the membership of J Street and not its vision. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I need specifics not generalities. Please cut and paste and lets see what do you mean. I am clueless --Rm125 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronit, at last there's something we can agree on: You are clueless. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You just said I am "shouting and whining" Now you try to be cinical.. Malik,what we are going to do with you? I hoped to "reform" you and tell you that INSULTS WILL NOT GET YOU ANYWHERE, but you continue to misbehave.I don't think you are on the right path if you ask me.Please repent, my son. Repent, confess your harmfulness, your harmdoing, prepare the way for the truth of Wikipedia to come into your life.I swear by the Lord of Wikipedia- You can call me a "whiner" and :clueless', " not honest" "deceptive' etc. Still I don't understand how it is helpful in our debate.Repent my friend and you will feel better and will go to the Wikipedia paradise.. --Rm125 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Federal Election Commission

Malik, You reverted to "Records indicate" from " According to Federal Election Commission" I wonder why? Clearly this is more accurate description and suppoted by the sourse.My question what was the reason of you reverting this? Just to make it shorter? Or just because it looks "official"Or may be it sounds like an Encyclopedia Brittanika.I am looking forward to your answer. --Rm125 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, the source is The Jerusalem Post, not the Federal Election Commission. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik,read carefully. Do you need more links?

http://www.forward.com/articles/14568/

--Rm125 (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronit, read carefully. Do you see anything about Arab or Muslim donors there? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about Federal Election Commussion here --Rm125 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you want to refer to the FEC as the source of the information concerning the Arab and Muslim donors. Nice try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik this section is dedicated to only one issue. Let's stick to it for clarity.--Rm125 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Malik the quote says clearly:

"The J Street political action committee has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission filings. " Please reread again in the J Post article.

It saysd clearly: "according to Federal Election Commission filings. " I still don't understand why is even controvercial?

In "political fund raising it says:

"Records indicate that dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans and Iranian advocacy organizations donated tens of thousands of dollars to J Street, representing "a small fraction" of the group's fund-raising. Donors included Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, who is a board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board.[19]"

All I want to do is change to:

"According to Federal Election Commission filings dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans and Iranian advocacy organizations donated tens of thousands of dollars to J Street, representing "a small fraction" of the group's fund-raising. Donors included Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, who is a board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board.[19]"

That's it. No more and no less. Please don't revert this time. I think the argument is over now. --Rm125 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? It being true is not a reason for it being here. nableezy - 20:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is important because the article says so and this is exectly the case.Why do you think it is not important? --Rm125 (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? <<"According to Federal Election Commission filings" sounds exact."Records indicate" doesn't sound like encyclopedia.>>It being true is not a reason for it being here.<< Being true is important for encyclopedia>> --Rm125 (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Individuals links to Arab, Muslim, Iranian interests

Malik. I think that this fact is important because this is VERY UNCOMMON THING for Arabs, Iranians and Muslims to support a Jewish pro Israel PAC. This is like this story with man who bites a dog. As you know when adog bites a man it not considered to be a story, however when a man bites a dog-this is different. I other words if a Palestinian Arab supports a pro Palestinian PAC this is not a story, but if the same Palestinian man Supports a pro Palestinian PAC and at the same time supports a pro Israeli PAC this looks like a story to me. Aince as you know Israel and Palestinias engage in some kind of "minor" dispute it sounds unreasonable.Sorry about such a detailed explanation but I have a difficulty to communicate my point to you and therefore for your sake I went to duch detailed explanation. If there is any more explanations I can provide, I will be delighted. --Rm125 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, I wrote above that your analysis is original research. The article already identifies several donors and their affiliations. It also says that AIPAC considers them anti-Israel. What you want to add is repetitive, and the quote from Ben-Ami appears word-for-word at the end of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik. with all respect you missed my point totally. Without trying to insult you please reread my previous post. My point was totally different. I appreciate if you can respond to the point I made.--Rm125 (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, with all respect you missed my point totally. Without trying to insult you please read WP:NOR and then re-read my previous post. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik post the exact quote from the sourse you find appropriate and then we can see what do you mean.--Rm125 (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronit, until you read WP:NOR we have nothing to discuss. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please save and paste the chapter toy rely upon so I can see your reasoning. WP:NOR has nothing to do with my point according to my understanding, unless you give a specific quote what you mean. --Rm125 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. copy and paste ( sorry for my Enlgish) --Rm125 (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik are you relating to this?[[3]]

I think it' reliable sourse --Rm125 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"AIPAC "that doesn’t make contributions to candidates the way J Street does"

Malik, you revetred it. Why? The fact is that AIPAC doesn't directly contributes to candidets and members of congress, however J Street does. This is an important fact to mrntion in Wikipedia because of a supposed/assumed/alleged/thought of rivary or competition between AIPAC and J Street. My question to you is'" Why this fact is not relevant if AIPAC NAME IS ALREADY IN MENTIONED? I am not calling you bias of course but I am trying to understand your point of view without sounding "deceptive" and "dishonest". Why it is NOT relevant fot God's sake? RespecFt --Rm125 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about AIPAC, and the way AIPAC spends its money is off-topic. If somebody is interested in learning more about AIPAC, Wikipedia has an article about them.

I'm not calling you biased, of course, but you're cherry-picking your source and making a mountain out of a molehill—just as your friends at AIPAC and The Jerusalem Post are. We're reporting what they said, but we shouldn't give their comments undue weight. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, dear, I am sorry for being so blunt but once again you totally speak out of context and jump to conclusions WITHOUT reading my post first or at least trying to get to my logic. I have spent a considerate amount of time trying to chew it up for ypu but you still don't want to discuss the simple point I rased here.

You say" This isn't an article about AIPAC, and the way AIPAC spends its money is off-topic. If somebody is interested in learning more about AIPAC, Wikipedia has an article about them." If you take a 2 second time to look it up you will discover that it is NOT about how AIPC spends its money.Check how many tines AIPAC is mentioned in the article.Ask yourself why. Then answer YOUR OWN question. Even more important is the fact that AIPAC and J Street are the ONLY pro Israeli PACs in Washington and compared in almoust every article everywhere. In fact I challange you to find a meaningful article about J Street without mentioning AIPAC. Good luck looking.Malik please don't fight the common sense. I haven't looked for it but I am pretty sure Wikipedia supports common sense 100% So do I. --Rm125 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I found you another link that gives you a better reason. If you can not find it I will find it for you

http://www.forward.com/articles/14568/

--Rm125 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronit, you really are clueless. Of course this article mentions AIPAC, and I've never suggested that it shouldn't. But it doesn't need to go into the details of how AIPAC spends its money. And by the way, AIPAC isn't a PAC at all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't "go into the details of how AIPAC spends its money" Don't you see? --Rm125 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

" AIPAC isn't a PAC at all". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AIPAC is not a PAC? Hmmmmmm... Cann't you read? A-I-P-A-C. It reads <ei-pac> --Rm125 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please put on your reading glasses. "AIPAC is not a political action committee, and does not directly donate to campaign contributions." It's right there in black and white at American Israel Public Affairs Committee#Aims and activities. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Eurica! This is exectly the point. Malik. Congadulationfs! --Rm125 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik I am happy you discovered the truth. I know how it feels. it IS liberating. --Rm125 (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop being condescending. Also, you still dont understand what Malik is saying. In American politics a PAC is a Political action committee. AIPAC describes itself a s a "Public affairs committee". Political action committees make donations to parties and candidates, AIPAC is not a PAC. nableezy - 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Look this is not the point of the original argument.Is the statement AIPAC "that doesn’t make contributions to candidates the way J Street does" is true or not --Rm125 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would that matter, they are 2 different kinds of organizations. nableezy - 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about AIPAC, and the way AIPAC spends its money is off-topic. If somebody is interested in learning more about AIPAC, Wikipedia has an article about them.

The fact that something is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. If we had a reliable source that mentioned Ben-Ami's height, we wouldn't include that either. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik you say:"This isn't an article about AIPAC, and the way AIPAC spends its money is off-topic." Now look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street#Capitol_Hill_lobbying

So how do you explain that out article in numerous places compares J Street and AIPAC. If you make a Google search you will finf J Street and AIPAC mentionad together in MOST online articles. Now, what say you? Why are you fighting the obvious?--Rm125 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

... and your point is?

In a section about fund-raising and budgets, it may be appropriate to compare the two organizations' budgets. In a section about J Street's donors, and the cooked-up controversy related to them, how AIPAC spends its money is irrelevant. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Solomont quote

I question the reason this chapter is here in the first place. It says “mainstream views of the American Jewish community” by what definition? How does he know that he represents a “mainstream? Can it be that this quote is b-b-b-biased or is it n-n-n-neutral POV? --Rm125 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote that's attributed to the speaker. Could it be your bias showing through? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik. ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA REGULATION you can not accuse me of BIAS

I think I am going to start a collection of your accusations (A) not honest(B) deceptive(C)clueless (D)etc,.etx.

Malik. I am gonna tell you mom you misbehave.Repennt, you are committing sin. The gods of Wiki nation are watching. Repent my son!Well, unfortunately our young generation is not as polite as it should be. In any case as an adult I have an obligation to be an example and elevate the level of discussion so let me, please, young gentleman..

The point is Dis:It doesn't matter what quote do you have here. It may be from the pope Julius the II or Mother Theresaof Calcutta, India. Whats inportant is the question" Is this chapter relevant for our topic-this is a question nomber one. The second question is:Is this question represent a neutral and non bias perspective (AS TO WR)? The third question. Is it represent the truth?And then another question (3A) And what data do you have to support it? The question nomber four. Why this chapter is here in the first place? Those questions and more you've got to answer my young friend Malik. Good luck with your assignment. --Rm125 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is what he sees as "mainstream" and by explicitly quoting him that is made clear. Please dont try and force an article to conform to your views. nableezy - 06:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer the previous argument. This supposed to be a discussion not dictate. Just because you can revert doesn;t make you right. I want to rewrite this chapter and ask for other Wikipedians what do they think. I will come up with the nre version soon. Would you agree to ask other Wikipedians for their opinion? --Rm125 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You can ask whomever you choose to ask, but you cannot force your opinions into an article. Wont happen. A founder of the organization says what he feels that organization represents. We say that he feels this way. There is nothing wrong with that besides you not liking what he said. nableezy - 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You've already heard another editor's opinion. You just don't like it. But let's wait to hear from other editors. In the meantime, while the issue is being discussed please leave the article the way it is. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, I'm having trouble following this discussion. Can you post a link to the source with the quote so that other editors know what you are referring to ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote in question is the fourth paragraph of the "Political vision" section. Rm125 is trying to delete it on the rationale described above. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Here you go Shorn: We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard. nableezy - 06:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Political vision, chapter 4. What bothers me is not the quote per se, but the sneaking in an opinion that the Jews who support J Street constitute a majority. What happens here they sneaked is a right quote but it describes their propaganda. The truth is he doesn't know that they are majority. It is not true. It is possible to sneak this in in one condition. It supposed to state clearly that "majority" is just his opinion. We don't need this quote here at all. They claim they included it because he is a founder. So it means that just because he is a founder his quote supposed to show up? Wikipedia supposed to reflect a neutral point of view. This is not NPV. I suggest to rewrite stating that accoding to him such and such...

For example:

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, said that the voices of voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, were heard the rest views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

Instead of:

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, described the need for J Street in the following way: "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."[4]

--Rm125 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words the quote is misleadibg. Cleverly I must add --Rm125 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebleze, NOWHERE in the quote it doesn't say that "mainstreme views" are just HIS opinion. It is taken for granted.Is it true? Not. I don't mind if you say it is HIS view. You can rewrite ir if you want --Rm125 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote isn't misleading. It's one person's opinion, and that person's opinion carries some weight with respect to this article because he helped found J Street. The fact that you don't like what he has to say, and disagree with him, is irrelevant. When we quote somebody and attribute the opinion, that is NPOV. See WP:ASF. We don't have to rewrite what Solomont said to satisfy the whims of an editor with a chip on his shoulder. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the neutral thing to do is to just let Solomont speak for himself in his own words and attribute those words as others have said here and try to balance his opinion with contrasting ones if possible. I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. I think the reason they use words like 'mainstream' is that J Street measure the extent to which their positions are consistent with the views of Jewish Americans by carrying out surveys (the validity of which can be challenged). If you have evidence from an RS that Solomont's statements are inaccurate or contrasting opinions then you can add that to the article. Those opinions will have to be treated in the same way as Solomont's. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik I have an example for you. It is pretty good. Logic light and this one is without the Jews. Listen to this:

Baba ,one of the founders of “ the Flat Earth Society” described it the following way: We have heard the voices of Pilots , Scientists and religion enthusiasts and the majority of the mainstream of American flat earth society have not been heard..”

The point is this: Baba assumes that majority of Americans are “ Flat Earthier” Nothing wrong about Baba's opinion as long as Baba clearly states: “According to my opinion the majority of Americans think that the earth is flat”. Bravo! I don’t mind if Malik rewrites it this way.

--Rm125 (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you babbling about, "without the Jews"? Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Please go away, little man, and come back after you've read and understood WP:NPOV, especially WP:ASF. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik you are cursing again as always. I am sorry you can not find a way to be civilized. BTW what are talking about? I read everything but still don't understand what;s on your mind. --Rm125 (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you insinuated that I'm antisemitic, I think I'm being very civil. If you've read WP:ASF and still don't "get" this whole discussion, there's a serious problem. Three editors have tried to explain it to you, but you either don't or won't get the point. Now that's what I call bias. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

anti Semitic? Are you crazy? Me? LOL. Why do you think so? I don/t think I EVER insulted you this way. Shameful thoughts. I wonder what are you trying to do here. Malik. May be it is too late or too early... you are going beyond reasonable, Malik. Clarify yourself, my friend. --Rm125 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the links provided, such as WP:ASF? Do you understand that we are saying that this is Solomont's opinion on the need for J Street? nableezy - 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ronit, you. "Malik I have an example for you. It is pretty good. Logic light and this one is without the Jews." What the hell is that supposed to mean? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, to be fair I think Rm125 was just, in a boneheaded way, trying to give an example outside of this area. nableezy - 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean, as I understand you want to leave the quote as is and add a quote that says that " J Street constitute MINORITY NOT MAJORITY. If this is the case it makes sense to me. I am not sure Malik and Nableze will agree with this arrangement. Malik and Nableze do you agree? --Rm125 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not quite what I meant. We must comply with NPOV (and ASF in particular) which means leaving the quote as it is. That is mandatory. I also think it would be good to balance his view with an opposing view if it's available. J Street have empirical data that they use to validate the statement that their positions represent the mainsteam. They aren't just making it up. Some parties have raised conflict of interest issues with respect to the company that did the data gathering. That may or may not be worth including but the bottomline is that if you want to include something/someone that challenges Solomont's statement you need to find an RS that makes that exact point. What we think about an issue is of no importance whatsoever. We aren't RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, this means EXACTLY what I said, I don't understand your thinking, sorry. I gave you an example- silly- I agree. I even made up a name BABA to make sure iy is detached from our theme here so you can think clearly and after I made everything for you , you insult me? Malik, unfortunately it is NOT the first time ( even not the fifth) I hope once again to convince you to treat me with respect as I treat you.--Rm125 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, what Sean wrote is that if you have either a reliable source that shows that Solomont is wrong, or somebody else's opinion that he is wrong, we should include that. Please re-read Solomont's quote. He never said that J Street represents the majority of American Jews. He said that the "mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard", which suggests that J Street is going to represent those mainstream views. Oh, and when you trawl the internet looking for opposing viewpoints, keep in mind WP:NOR, especially WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean. understand your point. I have only one problem. Normally in a court of law the accuser has to justify his point not the defender. Example. John said:"Mary's mother is a whore". Now it is true that John said that. He is convinced. He swears by it. However Both Mary and her mother are not necessarily happy to be called whores. May be Mary has a boyfriend who cares or may be she just did it once and it’s not big deal... The bottom line John can not just say whatever he wants and thinks. the judge reviewed the case and said : Sorry John you have to give evidence that Mary's mother is a whore so I can believe you" our John is pissed. He is sure , but fer sure Mary's mother is a whore. so Mary has to bring the evidence to the judge that she is NOT a whore. John says to the judge;I don't care. Mary needs to bring her doctor and her doctor and the police MUST prove that she is not a whore. Now sean YOU are the jury. Who is right John ot Mary?--Rm125 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what I think. See WP:V. As long as the information in Wikipedia complies with the core, mandatory policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR an editor can have confidence that the material is suitable, they will probably be able to get consensus to add it and that they are following the rules they agreed to follow when they created their account. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik do you think Nableze has a valid opinion or your opinion has more value then his?--Rm125 (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Sean I got it .Thanks for your explanation.I am just a "nice guy" and trying to please everybody. I believ in reasonable approach based on agreement rather then edit wars. In any case I am rewriting this paragraph to make everybody happy. From:

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, described the need for J Street in the following way: "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

To:

"According to Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, the needs of mainstream Jewish community has not been heard. He said Jewish community "have heard only the voices of neocons, right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals" prior to J Street establishment."

Sean and Nableze thanks for your feedbak. Now I am sure even Malik will find this rewrite fair. --Rm125 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to rewrite the paragraph. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you shouldn't change the article until your proposal has been commented upon and has gained consensus. If you truly are a "nice guy" you will abide by Wikipedia guidelines. Please undo your last edit. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik we already discussed those points. Nableze agreed with me 100%

The original problem as I stated was NPV. His OPINION is not a FACT. The rewrite is very close with ALL the key words plus a quote --Rm125 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did anybody agree with you? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All I added is just " According to" --Rm125 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1) No you didn't. You rewrote the sentence to your own POV.

2) Apparently Nableezy agreed with you so much that he just reverted you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik, to be fair I think Rm125 was just, in a boneheaded way, trying to give an example outside of this area. nableezy - 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs)

My own POV? How? Can you describe what it is--Rm125 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)?

This is funny.So he takes his words back? This is what it is? He reverted WITHOUT reasom. You don;t win an argument this way. I am sure he did it automatically, withou thinking twice --Rm125 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it here. We discussed this point already and Nablese agreed with me 100%. You can go back and see his post . I am not kidding it says;

Malik, to be fair I think Rm125 was just, in a boneheaded way, trying to give an example outside of this area. nableezy - 08:17, 23 August 2009

Now what? --Rm125 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that's an endorsement of the rewrite you want? It seems to me he was explaining that you hadn't insinuated that I was antisemitic. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentelmen, I urge you to be honorable. Once you agree with my point you can not just take your words back without even explaining yourself! My God! Am I dreaming here? What's the point of discussion here , just to wear me out. This is EXTREMELY ANFAIR and not a gentlemanlike.Have a good day. This board has a jungle culture and no basic honor. I am DUNE WITH WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS A DISGRACE!--Rm125 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What nonsence. This is how you interprete this:

Malik, to be fair I think Rm125 was just, in a boneheaded way, trying to give an example outside of this area. nableezy - 08:17, 23 August 2009

--Rm125 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, I was talking about Malik being upset thinking you had insinuated that he was antisemitic. Nothing about the article. And what are these RfC tags doing here? There is no statement of the dispute in it and it is not sorted at all. Rm125, would you like to make an RfC on the inclusion of the quote? (and please dont keep copying and pasting what I wrote about something not related to what you are talking about) nableezy - 22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy, what do you call this? "I think Rm125 was just, in a boneheaded way, trying to give an example outside of this area" May be I am a not native speaker but I think it says it all. All I am seeing on this site is insults and accusations. Do you want me to give you a list of what I was called here by Malik Shabbazz? Not nonest, deceptive, clueless,he accused me of blaming him of being antisemite(false) and more and more. I have a full list. I am sick and tired of being insulted here. I would like to have somebody experienced to investigate this conversation and take an appropriate measures. I wish I knew how to involve other editior so they can read this board and wonder.I am seriously considering leaving this wikipedia business because it is a jungle out here. Instead of discussing people are just reverting, vandalizing and erazing my work. This is NOT a simple disagreement my friend. I have a full board to show you. --Rm125 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What do I call that? Assuming that you were not implying that Malik is an antisemite and saying that to Malik. It had nothing to do with the article, I dont know why you keep saying I agreed with you about the quote. Let me make this perfectly clear. I do not agree with you about the quote, I agree with Malik and Sean about the passage. And why is it you expect you can revert other editors but not be reverted? Why is it we have to read you calling us vandals while you continue to do the same thing over and over, despite the objections of multiple people? You cannot just demand your edits be accepted, and you cannot demand that your version remain on the page while a discussion is ongoing. Will not work. People have tried to do this for a long time, force some POV material into an article and demand it remain while we "discuss". You will not be successful with that tactic. If you want to change the quote you need to convince others, not just demand of others. nableezy - 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all I never blamed Sean. He is respectful and reasonable.Second if yoi see the board you can see that I never reverted without THOROUGH explanation. You don't need to be a genius to see that here. You on the other hand ( you and Malik) revert and vandalize WITHOUT proper discussion. Even without scientific researsh you can see how much I tried to communicate my points. You are NOT justified in saying that I didn'y duscuss my points prior to editing or reverting, Nablezy.

--Rm125 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say you didnt "discuss", you just keep pushing in your favored views without any agreement, in fact with broad agreement against you. With your attitude I am not even going to try to help you. Bye. nableezy - 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, have you read WP:BRD ? The wiki editing process can make more sense and be less frustrating when you look it as a bold->revert->discuss->bold->revert->discuss etc cycle. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.I am looking at it --Rm125 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Does somebody know how to invite general public or other Wikipedians to comment?

Please let me know, thanks --Rm125 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First, dont just put an RfC tag up, you need to format things a certain way. As clearly as possibly, describe what problem you have with the quote and I will put a completed RfC tag up for you. nableezy - 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem is very simple.

(A)Brutal and unfair insults by Malik Shabbazz as seen above (Solomont quote) and elsewhere. I wonder if there is an ethics commitee who can look into it.

(B) Regarding the above quote. I want to somebody to review the conversation and my reasonong

(C) The quote is no proper because it is given an OPINION as A FACT. I rewrote the chapter with simple addition "according to" That's it. All other info and part of the quote are left AS IS. This is a part written FROM NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.

(D) I want more people then just one or two to take a look at this and give me a feedback.

(E) If I decide to continue bring a contributot( based on the feedback I will get) I wont to make sure I would be treated with respect.

That's it. Now please let my request hit the wikipedia universe. thanks. --Rm125 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nablezy I appriciate if you give me a link to this tag so I know what is it and how to use it on my own. Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The request should be limited to issues related to the article. If you want comments about my behavior, you can bring it up at WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Keep in mind that your behavior will also be commented upon. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Quote from neutral point of view

From:

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, described the need for J Street in the following way: "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

To:

"According to Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, " the needs of mainstream Jewish community has not been heard." He said Jewish community "have heard only the voices of neocons, right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals" prior to J Street establishment."

[[4]]

[[5]]

chapter 4

My reasoning is: Opinion( that the main stream viewsof AJ have not been heard. My correction let AS express his opinion however it clearly says "according to"Alan Solomont Then of course there is a link with the article attached.

Another version is:

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, described the need for J Street in the following way: "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals", then he claimed that "the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard"

I appreciate your feedback. --Rm125 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As required by WP:RFC, a brief neutral statement of the issue:

Is it appropriate to quote one of the founders of an organization concerning his motivation and attribute the quote to him, or should Wikipedia editors paraphrase the quotation? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with to post a quote.As you see the quote may remain.The problem here is NPV. He takes it for granted that he represents "the mainstream views of the American Jewish community" witch is OK to but it nessesary to say it is his opinion-not a fact. Thw way the quote is presented it's not clear.You see that the sentence is almoust identical, including the quote

"We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals", then he claimed that "the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard"

It sounds much more clearly without compromising anything, and the quote is there too.If you want, please rewrite it your way. Let's see how it looks. --Rm125 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, you have already commented. Many times. Please leave this space for uninvolved editors to comment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the stated purpose of the organization, so it should be presented as a full quote rather than the "thus we have heard" tone Wikipedia often uses for critical review. Shii (tock) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Shii, Makes sense, I agree. Let's leave it the way it is. --Rm125 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Post the quote. It keeps things clear and less controversial. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I also would favor keeping the quote intact. It is clear that the opinions are part of the quote, and any effort to break the quote up ends up editorializing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: New section-" Criticism of J Street"

I recommend to create a new section. This way all criticism can be consentrated in one section. Any suggestions, remarks? --Rm125 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we usually try to get rid of criticism sections, not introduce them. Criticism and praise should be discussed in the relevant sections. Shii (tock) 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already has a section about public response to the organization, which includes both praise and criticism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd recommend putting well-referenced criticism in the public response section. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The other thing to bear in mind Rm125 is that if you are planning to only add criticism then you may have a conflict of interest. See the discretionary sanctions in place on Israel-Palestine related articles and specifically the 'Editors counseled' section. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for your feedback. First I am not "planning" anything. I was asking other wikipedians for their opinion.I think there is a difference here.Second about about "conflict of interest". My only interest is a NPV. Adding a criticism section is pretty common on other sites so I disagree with you on that, sorry.When I talk about "criticism" section it doesn't mean you have to add more information but consentrate all critical information in one section. So Sean I am not talking about changing but restructuring this article. And once again it is a discussion. I would like to see more opinions. I think it is pretty reasonable, don't you think? --Rm125 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean. Once again about NPV. I think both J Street and AIPAC articles deserve a good critic section because they attract huge amount of criticism. You can Google it and see that more then 50% of the articles deal with criticism ( and I am on a conservative side here.)--Rm125 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of Rm125.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont, we shouldnt have exclusive criticism sections as they become coatracks for every complaint anybody has had. Criticism should be written into the article along with praise. nableezy - 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, your suggestion is perfectly reasonable but as nableezy says, it's inconsistent with the wiki guidelines. Have a look at WP:CRIT. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Critcism, if it is balanced, and the neutral wordings are used, then it will only benefit the article.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, good point. Well put. Balanced criticism contributes to the article, gives some "juice" and depth.It also can and should be given from NPV. --Rm125 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Does "Meaning of Name" section has "right to exist"?

I wonder if it is nessasary and if yes-can it be inserted in another section? --Rm125 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, it is ok for being as separate section, since the name is very unusal for an organization of this type.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I must tell you I was surprised to read the story of their name. I assumed it stands for "Jewish" Street. I can assure you that they wouldn't give it a name "H" Street or "P " Street or (W)hatever Street. This is just a clever excuse. In my opinion the idea is to say that they represent a 'main street" Jewish opinion. I agree it is a clever name.--Rm125 (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding post Holocoust generation and assimilation of American Jews

Seon here it describes the difference between the older generation to younger one represented by J Street staff.The article deals with what represens AIPAC and whom represents J Street. As to the idea that intermarriage in the Jewish community does not matter- this is not an educated point. Even today in the article you can see that it is #1 issue of concern to Jewish community. I will provide a link for somebody who wants to learn how important assimilation issue is:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJBdhogt2eShAUr5p4PxR6DF1u4gD9AK7VEO0

--Rm125 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue here who represent American Jews and what parts of it each organisation represents. The article says that AIPAC represents Jewish generation who passes away with Holocoust and their traditional views. J Street wants to win over a younger generation who is assimilated and consist of diverse group of people. As an example he gives that all his staff who are from this (younger) generation all are intermarried and "doing Buddhist sedess" meaning all have more assimilated and current views as opposed to older generation. Yes, Seon, Malik--Rm125 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)(

And another point to Malik, Seon and others to consider: Do you want to erase the previous piese of information too?( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) Where are you going with your argument, gentlemen, why it is a problem that you refuse to except that the fact is J Street consist of the staff who is assimilated in his entirety and attend Buddhist seders ( ritual based in Judaism)? As a general education 'Buddhist seder" to a Jew is oxymoron. It is like saying Buddhist mass in the Catholic church.--Rm125 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, what is the relevance of (a) the religion of staff members' spouses and (b) staff members' religious practices? If J Street were a religious organization whose members were all secular Jews, it would be important to note that. In this case, it seems irrelevant. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik asks:"what is the relevance of (a) the religion of staff members' spouses and (b) staff members' religious practices?" why don't you email NYT and ask them why they decided to emphasise this point? I am sure they will give you an answer.Fer shure.My humble opinion (A)( repeated specially for Malik-look above plus link) It is very important point from the perspective of NYT.(B) It is a vert important point in Jeremy ben Amy argument. ( once again Malik, why don;y you read the article instead of asking me all the facts?

Generally, Malik... please read the above points.You nisunderstand the whole issue of religion and a nationality within Jewish community.For the sake of general education I will tell you ( I know Jewish issues are of special interest to you) how it works for us Jews as opposed to Muslims (or Christians for this matter)

When a person says that he is a Jew it doesn't mean he ia a beliver. He can be agnostic or non believer. He still consider himself a Jew. When a man says he is a Muslim he says that he is a religeous Muslim( believes in 5 pillars of Muslim faith) There is no nationality called Muslim nationality.Jews are nationality, culture, civilization not just a religeon.Muslim is not a nationality. I am a secular( or may be not) Jew. The fact that I believe or don't believe in Judaism has nothing to do with me being a Jew.

As to religeous practices. They practice some kind of af Buddhist seders ( If you don't know 'seder' within Jewish community and in Judaism is a religion ritual commemorading Hebrews exit from slavery in Egypt. There is no connection to the religion of Buddhism whatsowever Buddhists never went to Egypt and experience slavery. To combine Judaism and Buddhism is an interesting practice of their staff and an axymoron( look it up)for a traditional Jew. The quote is given in context of comparison between AIPAC supporters and J Street supporters and therefore relevant and important.

I want to ask you a question, Malik. Is a matter of accutacy inportant to you or the idea that J Street attracts a wide variety of people both Jews, non Jews and Jews who are " going to Buddhist seders" and intermarried bothers you?Why? --Rm125 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, instead of being condescending, why don't you answer my question? The New York Times didn't "emphasize" the point; you're taking 8 words out of a 4700+ word article out of context and you're emphasizing them.

I'm very familiar with issues of religion and nationality among Jews. That's why I gave an example of a religious organization with a secular Jewish staff.

So, again, what is the relevance to an article about J Street of (a) the religion of staff members' spouses and (b) the staff members' religious practices? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When an organisation claims to represent Almerican Jews but AL THEIR STAFF MEMBER practice "Buddhistic Judsaism" and they are intermarried (There is a problem within Hudaism with intermarriage) it it important . If you bring a person who is "doing Buddhist seder" and his home is not kosher ( intermarried- means other family member is not Jewish therefor not nessasary commited to Jewish issues)

The general idea is this: If a Muslim eats pork I can say he is not very commited Muslim.I would question his authority on Muslim issues.If a jew "doing Buddhist seders" I would question his authority on Jews. This is simple. if a Jew 'doing Buddhist seders ( meaning sitting with his legs crossed, chanting, meditating or what have you) I am not sure he is an authority on Jewish issues. I don;t have a problem with a person doing Catholic mass, dancing with Buddha chanting harry crishna and saying Allah Akbat and there is no prophet but Muhammed and at the same time claiming to be unbeliever. All I say it is important to mension to get a prospective about the person. The fact that The leader of J Street himself says it to NYT article is notable enaugh.--Rm125 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Malik asked” So, again, what is the relevance to an article about J Street of (a) the religion of staff members' spouses and (b) the staff members' religious practices? Malik, you look up( scroll it) I gave you an answer. I will copy it for you once again. Please read this time:

“Malik asks:"what is the relevance of (a) the religion of staff members' spouses and (b) staff members' religious practices?" why don't you email NYT and ask them why they decided to emphasize this point? I am sure they will give you an answer. Fer shure. My humble opinion (A)( repeated specially for Malik-look above plus link) It is very important point from the perspective of NYT.(B) It is a vert important point in Jeremy ben Amy argument. ( once again Malik, why don;y you read the article instead of asking me all the facts?”

This is already 3rd time I answer the question. What the matter with you? Are you trying to wear me out? --Rm125 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rm125, I recommend that you calm down and think about this rationally. First, stop being condescending and trying to teach me about Judaism. I probably know as much about Judaism as you do, chaver Rm125.

Where does The New York Times say the J Street staff keep non-kosher homes, or that they practice Buddhist Judaism? You're reading a lot into those 8 words. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here.

You're also edit-warring. That's really not very good, to return after two blocks for disruptive editing and edit warring and start edit-warring again.

A significant portion of the American Jewish population is married to non-Jewish spouses. So that makes the J Street staff unique how? And many American Jews—including some rabbis—don't find any contradiction between Judaism and Buddhism (see Jewish Buddhist). Again, how does that make the J Street staff remarkable? You're taking 8 words out of a 4700-word article and making a mountain out of nothing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, you haven't answered the question once. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rm125, I don't have time to delve into the details of this discussion at the moment and get involved but can I ask you to do 2 things that would help enormously please ?

• 1. Please, please, please properly indent your comments so that discussions are correctly 'threaded' as per Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation. It really is very important that to do this so that discussions are easy to follow.
• 2. Please try to keep your replies brief, to the point and focused on the article.

I can see that you are trying to improve the article but these 2 simple things will help to progress things, reduce the frustration levels and encourage other users to get involved. Poorly formated, verbose talk pages put editors off and you are less likely to get other opinions on the issues of interest to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean, Thanks for your involvement. Yes, I am trying to improve the article. I think once you read the original article in NYT and see the quote I refer to and follow the argumentation I provided, you see clearly how important, proper and necessary this addition is. I am sorry you have difficulty to understand my argument. I sincerely trying to explain my point- I don't run from explanation. I apologize that since English is not my strong language ( this is my 3rd best after Russian and Hebrew} As you know when you know your language as good as native you can make it brief and precise. It takes more time for me. Unfortunately some people use this fact to take advantage. I will try to express myself in a better way but please understand you can not use this language issue against me. In my business I deal with very high profile individuals NO ONE told me that I am not clear in my presentations- the opposite is true. Just last year I saved a company I consult more then $2 000 000 since I discovered a little contract violation nobody noticed for 5! years. Not only I‘ve got a fancy certificates and mentioning in a professional magazine- I got a huge bonus I even don't feel comfortable to mention. In business environment when " money talks" my contributions are highly valued so why I always get this language issue mentioned here? May be it is not easy to confront my logical points straight head on? This is the reason I get only GENERAL observations without getting to details. I am coming to the conclusion that some people are trying to stick to technicalities instead of getting into intelligent argument. If you have a specific issue with certain point you don't understand -it is one thing, but if GENERALLLY to say I am not understood is totally another one.

The fact is I sent 2 letters to William M. Connolly and Mango juice ( see the talk pages) and I didn't have any complains of misunderstanding. Sorry for being so long but the language issue seems not to go away. Respectfully, Rm125. P.S. I will use word processor on important comments from now on- I will try to make it easier on you and others to understand. And please take your time to see this issue through- in fact it is quite trivial-this is the reason it is so frustrating.--Rm125 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of discussion with Malik Shabbaz so far( hopefully the last)

Recent answer to Malik Shabbazz:

“Rm125, I recommend that you calm down and think about this rationally.<<<are you finally start talking rationality? Congratulation >>>First, stop being condescending and trying to teach me about Judaism. I probably know as much about Judaism as you do, chaver <<< No you don’t. Just because you know one word chaver (friend in Hebrew)This is the same as to say that I can teach you about Islam. I understand Arabic and have some knowledge about Islam-but to claim that you know better then me about Jews and Judaism- being a Muslim and never lived in Jewish skin like me- this only shows how ridiculous it is. Every average Jew knows “about Judaism“ better then you and professor Edward Said combined, sadiqi>>> Where does The New York Times say the J Street staff keep non-kosher homes, or that they practice Buddhist Judaism? You're reading a lot into those 8 words. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here.<<< It shows you don’t care to follow at all. This was said in a DISCUSSION HERE . What kind of “original research” you are talking about? It show you even don’t care about this discussion and totally disregard it- Why you invent things?>>> You're also edit-warring. That's really not very good, to return after two blocks for disruptive editing and edit warring and start edit-warring again.<<< What are you talking about here??? Once again you “warning me? For what?>>> A significant portion of the American Jewish population is married to non-Jewish spouses. So that makes the J Street staff unique how?<<< I never claimed it is unique-it is important to the founder of J Street to mention to NYT reporter as a explanation point about the difference between generations-and AIPAC/J Street constituency or following- look at the article. You have to read the article after all, Malik Shabbazz>>> And many American Jews—including some rabbis—don't find any contradiction between Judaism and Buddhism (see Jewish Buddhist).<<< What are you talking about, Malik Are you serious? Just because some American believe in UFOs does it mean it is a main stream? It makes me laugh what length you have to go in order to say something…>>>Again, how does that make the J Street staff remarkable?<<<And this is the only criteria for placing something in the article per your opinion? There are no other considerations. May be it is very important point? Yes??>>> You're taking 8 words out of a 4700-word article and making a mountain out of nothing<<< No you are counting words? This is what you do in EVERY article or J Street is a SPECIAL one? This was mentioned by the founder of J Street!!! ( Hello!) in an comparison between two generations of American Jews.(yes?) One generation id dying out and another -J Street coming to replace it.This how he describes this generation and gives his ENTIRE staff as an example(yes, Malik?). J Street is a diverse organization consistent of “Jews and non Jews” as you can see in the article. (yes?)It is legitimate to continue this point of view with the IMPORTANT remark of the founder of J Street ( yes the big cigar himself)in the very important American newspaper NYT.( important-no?) If both Jeremy Ben Ami-the founder of J Street uses it in an example in the huge “expose” article of J STREET in important American newspaper NEW YORK TIMES and BOTH OF THEM think it is important to write and emphasize, why their opinion is less then an opinion of SHABAZZ?? (yes?)If I take the authority of the founder of J Street Jeremy Ben Ami and the authority of NYT and put it against an opinion of MALIK SHABBAZ I will shoose Ben Ami and NYT not Malik Shabbaz, sorry , sadiqi, hudafez. Salaam aleikum, habibi

1) What makes you think I'm a Muslim? Have you looked at my User page?

2) You need to use common sense and consider whether this information is note-worthy. Is it significant, and why? The answer is no. The fact that The New York Times mentioned it briefly (8 words!) in a 4700-word article gives you an indication of how unimportant it is, but you think it's vitally important. Yes, one of the criteria for whether something belongs in an article is whether it is unique. We don't mention that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man with two legs because most people have two legs. I was trying to make a similar point about this article: if there is nothing unique about the J Street staff, why should we mention the religion of their spouses? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And why on earth was this in the lead? nableezy - 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This must be last, Malik, please

Malik Shabbaz sez:

1) What makes you think I'm a Muslim? Have you looked at my User page?

<<< I don’t know where you are leading. I don’t think it is a valid point for discussions.>>>

2) You need to use common sense and consider whether this information is note-worthy.

<<< I was under impression that I use my common sense. Do you have a reason to believe I don’t? Then please tell me why.>>>

Is it significant, and why? The answer is no. The fact that The New York Times mentioned it briefly (8 words!) in a 4700-word article gives you an indication of how unimportant it is, but you think it's vitally important.

<<< You asked me to use my “common sense” and I am trying to follow your advice..Why do you think that the fact that” 8 words”are very small fraction of an article of 4700 word- article makes a difference? First I admire your determination to go to this length. You probably downloaded the whole article in your word processor and counted everything. Of course prior to is you needed to sign up for NYT membership (since you can not article in any other way) In any case I admire your determination. It MUST be important to you. . However I don’t see that your reasoning is correct for the following reason. For example if you have a book(thick one) lets say 47 000 000 000 000 words total. Lets say you see a quote in this book- about 8 words total. Can you claim that since these 8 words quote are so few compared to some zillions of words-it is significant? Do you know the answer or I should tell you.? If not please think about it.

Another example. If you have an important book, let’s say Quran and you see a quote approximately 8 words-can you claim it is not important? Once again, think about it and if it is still not clear I will try hard to explain-you can not blame me for neglecting your argument, do you?>>>

Yes, one of the criteria for whether something belongs in an article is whether it is unique.

<<< What do you mean by “unique”? In a man-bites-a-dog way? How other parts of the article are “unique”? How do you determine if this is supposed to be "unique"? As somebody who is an experienced Wikipedian can you find me a section in Wikipedia which mention this criteria? Please provide a link, would you? >>>

We don't mention that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man with two legs because most people have two legs.

<<< I don’t know what your point is. This is a fact. The quote I provided is a part of Ben Ami’s justification of relevancy of J Street existence. If you still don’t get it please read the article, Malik. I think that your insistence of not reading the article is misplaced. Read the article for heaven sake instead of playing with word processor.- I know you are good at technicalities, Malik.>>>

I was trying to make a similar point about this article: if there is nothing unique about the J Street staff, why should we mention the religion of their spouses?

<<< Malik nobody mentioned religion of their spouses- why don’t you read the article for once? The fact that they are “intermarried” is mentioned for a very simple reason: It is important to Ben Ami to justify it this way and second- NYT choose (rightly) to mention it in the article.

Malik, with all the respect I am capable to master… you even claim “I know as much as you do about Judaism, haver..

C’monl man had you have enough? Why not lock your word processor, breath some fresh air and see the light? Why don‘t you let it be,habibi'ما يكفي من'—

--Rm125 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I have seen you make assumptions about people. You were wrong last time and you are wrong now. It is both insulting and bigoted for you to continue saying these things, and it can, and likely will, end with a block if you dont stop with these quips about people you disagreeing with being Arabs or Muslims. It is both insulting to those you are saying it to and to other Arabs or Muslims. Stop. nableezy - 00:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy I will respond to you in the next section --Rm125 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go again, Rm125, making this about me instead of the article. It's an old habit of yours that you revert to when you have nothing of substance to contribute. Calling me a Muslim doesn't offend me, but—for the record—it's incorrect. In any event, it's completely irrelevant to this article, just as Jeremy Ben Ami's off-hand comment is. This was explained to you on your Talk page by an uninvolved editor, but you alone know The Truth. Please listen to what everybody else is saying. There's a reason everybody else disagrees with you, and it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didnt think calling you a Muslim would be offensive, dismissing what you say because somebody thinks you are is insulting, at least it would insult me if somebody dismissed my points because they thought I was a Buddhist or Christian or Jew. nableezy - 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, I've been dismissing all of your points on the basis that I thought you were a Protestant from Mali who converted to Buddhism while living as an expat in Djibouti. I for one will certainly be reexamining my approach to these matters in light of this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that Ben Ami was just joking about "buddhist seders"?--195.113.70.110 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for forgetting to log in --Georgius (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"We are all intermarried"

Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote: "It just so happens that my wife's father was born in Petah Tikva - his grandparents, like my great-grandparents, part of the first aliyah from Russia, founders of Petah Tikva in 1882. My father-in-law fought in the Palmach in 1948 and again in the Sinai in 1956. He emigrated to this country and became a cantor, training me and hundreds of other young people for their bar and bat mitzvahs in nearly four decades as a member of the clergy."

Of course his father-in-law could have a non-jewish wife, but with this CV it does not seem very likely. --Georgius (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)