Talk:J Street/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fully protected...

...and, depending on your point of view, protected at The Wrong Version™. If I have to protect it again it'll probably be at The Other Wrong Version™. However... why not take this opportunity to do the sensible thing? I've now watchlisted the article: I'd like to see no more edit warring. Remember that you can be blocked for edit warring, and that you don't need to hit WP:3RR to be edit warring. 3RR is a bright-line, not an entitlement, etc etc. TFOWR 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ackerman vs. J Street: I'm missing the point.

I'm not sure of the import of the addition of Ackerman's statement to the J. Street "Controversies" section. I don't see any ongoing controversy about J. Street's position w.r.t. the U.N. resolution. This was just one Congress person being intemperate without even engaging in any controversy. I edited in a reference showing that Ackerman has mischaracterized J. Street's position. But I think this whole paragraph should just come out. In the context of an encyclopedia article it's just vitriol that does not serve to enlighten the reader. M.boli (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

it seems pretty clear to me that if a member of congress who is self-defined as being supportive of the organization makes a decision not to support them for significant reasons (which would include something mentioned in their statement of principles), then it warrants inclusion. this wasn't a blogger who ranted with vitriol....and i am not convinced that using a j street press release absolves j street of the controversial aspect of what happened. Soosim (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that some editors are involved in a game of Gotcha! They'll seize on any opportunity to paint J Street in a bad light. What one Congressmember does isn't of any significance, especially when he acted out of ignorance. Next week they'll be fighting to put some other nonsense in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that some editors really like certain organizations and will protest any time any sort of criticism is added to the article. Our original research whether Ackerman was correct or incorrect in his characterizations is irrelevant in the face of coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, the article now somehow manages to omit the fact that J specifically say they are against the US using its veto power in this case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

People, even members of Congress, take pot-shots at J Street all the time. It is a simple policy disagreement, surrounded by strong language. I don't see a need to catalog all pot shots or instances of Congress critters getting all exercised. Heaven knows they do it all the time.

But rather than starting a revert war, I decided to improve the paragraph to address a problem, viz: it does not cite or describe the J Street position paper that Ackerman was responding to. I added a reference to J Street's original statement and one sentence summary of its stance regarding how to deal with the proposed resolution. It was more enlightening and less tendentious than referencing/describing J Street's response to Ackerman. Also note I did not put in the article that I think Ackerman mischaracterized J Street's position. Sorry, my edit summary was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If Ackerman was a well known supporter (I don't actually know if he was. They did raise money for him apparently) and he publicly cut ties with the organization over policy and that got significant coverage, that's a notable controversy and should be noted in the article. I don't think J Street's position is accurately reflected since they say here that "we cannot support a U.S. veto of a Resolution that closely tracks long-standing American policy and that appropriately condemns Israeli settlement policy". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the current text is that, like many editors with strong views about this issues, Soosim didn't follow Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone. I would suggest replacing the quote with a brief, neutral description of Ackerman's view. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
sean - thank you for your kind words. i think your suggestion is an excellent one. and regarding that 'even members of congress take pot shots', the point here is that it is a friend, not foe, of j street's. if a right-wing republican, even jewish, member said something, then that probably wouldn't be newsworthy at all. Soosim (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

sources

Malik - I m confused by your recent edits. You tagged an opinion piece about the controversyas not reliable (because it is an op-ed), but just before that, you added a rather lenghty paragraph to the same section sourced to a blog. What gives ?Rym torch (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorials can't be used as sources for statements of fact, which is why I tagged the Jerusalem Post editorial as a non-reliable source (since it's being used as a source for what Rabbi Saperstein said at the J Street meeting). Editorials and opinion columns are reliable sources with respect to the opinions expressed therein, so I can quote Jeffrey Goldberg's column at The Atlantic as a RS for his own views. Likewise, a Jerusalem Post editorial is a perfectly fine source for a sentence that starts, "A Jerusalem Post editorial expressed concern ..." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
got it. Thanks Rym torch (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening section of the J Street article was heavily biased, as it did not address one of the main characteristics of the organization, namely the strong reservations regarding its activities by many key members of the US Jewish community as well as many prominent Israelis.

I believe that even after my contribution the article remains unbalanced regarding the controversial nature of J Street.

That is not to say that there are not Jews (and non-Jews) in Israel and in the Diaspora who support J Street’s views and activities, but the controversial nature of the organization is undeniable and has become a major part of J Street’s ethos. Ignoring this key distinction of the organization in the opening section is therefore both wrong and biased.

The fact that this key characteristic of the organization is addressed in more detail later in the article does not contradict the need to note it in the opening section.

I added a brief paragraph (the second paragraph in the opening section beginning “Though J Street has billed itself…” to balance the bias, and provided the required sources for the paragraph’s text (see 22:10, 9 May 2011 109.186.15.159). If anyone has a problem with the specific wording or content of that paragraph then by all means they should improve it. But on the day my contribution was made, it was removed by Malik Shabazz with no explanation. This is unacceptable, and I call upon the article’s responsible wikipedia editor to prevent this happening again.

I have undone the removal by Malik Shabazz,. I will revisit the site from time to time to reinstate the paragraph, until a justified explanation is provided for its removal or the attempt to remove it ceases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.15.159 (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the text is copied and pasted from the source. That is a copyright violation (COPYVIO), and it is not tolerated. Under the edit box is a note that says: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will rephrase the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.15.159 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The opening section of the article is biased, and does not represent a WP:NPOV. J Street may be considered 'controversial' by some, but to use phrases such as 'J Street presents itself as a pro-Israel organization, which supports peace between Israel and its neighbors. However......' is clearly not taking a neutral point of view. I have replaced this with a more neutral statement.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

Ref the section that starts

In March 2011, MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) said to Ben-Ami during a Knesset committee meeting: “You are not Zionists and you do not care about Israeli interests. Fifty rockets a day are fired ........... is followed by a response from J Street. I would like to add in to the J Street rebuttal some quotes from Knesset members who supported J Street at this hearing. At present this section does not make it clear that J Street received support from Knesset members during this hearing. E.g.

Kadima MK Nahman Shai said, "...even though I do not necessarily agree with the group's opinions, I do accept the fact that they have the right to represent their position." Others, such as Labor MK Daniel Ben Simon, advocated on J Street's behalf, saying he is "proud to support them". http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2123/israel-knesset-debate-and-j-street-agenda Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz Quote

The 3RR mark on the Dershowitz "more damage" quote having passed, maybe it is time to stop and take a deep breath. Here are my own views.

  • It is an unhelpful quote for two reasons. a) It is not even minimally enlightening, it only accuses J Street of having caused damage. b) It is just Dershowitz venting. The guy is reliably hypererbolic in his opinions.
  • But I wasn't willing to simply remove it, on the grounds that somebody (and I guess a variety of somebodies) thinks that Dershowitz disliking J Street is meaningful.
  • So I changed the paragraph to quote Dershowitz on his actual charge against J Street, viz: he doesn't think J Street's positions are being stifled so much as they are way outside the realm of pro-Israel discourse. I also included the context, being that Ben-Ami had accused him of stifling debate.
  • Having replaced the ridiculous-looking (I felt) Dershowitz quote with his equally hyperbolic disagreement, I thought that the editors who like to find fault with J Street would actually prefer the fuller version.
  • I guess not. There are people who seem to like that "more damage" quote.

Being reluctant to get into an edit tempest over what is a teapot by any measure, I have contributed no edits beyond my original one. But clearly a revert war has broken out, and I hope that the various parties try to settle it here before article blockage is imposed. Personally I like it better without the quote. But it doesn't seem to me to be a big enough issue to war over. But people seem to disagree with me about that, also. M.boli (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to balance a quote is with another quote. I recommend [1] which is mildly critical but has an unambiguous "J Street is still a Zionist organization." On the other hand, this section is out of proportion already - there is no real reason to keep detailed opinions of all these people. I would suggest complete restructuring of this section which would in one-two paragraphs summarize the diverse opinions. Naturally, myself I don't want to do that. Mhym (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria

Removed the following from article, since it no longer seems to be what J Street is saying about itself (so clearly):

  • On Syria: "J Street believes that an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty would contribute significantly to stability and security in the region. The US should vigorously encourage and facilitate Israeli-Syrian peace talks, building on talks pursued previously under Israeli Prime Ministers Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak, and Olmert." http://www.jstreet.org/page/syria [dead link]

--Sreifa (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Removal of valid sources which are not (COPYVIO) by Malik Shabazz

Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of information from another source. If the other source is public domain or compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, close paraphrasing is not a problem as long as the source is properly acknowledged. All sources I used are properly acknowledged--Tritomex (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a single sentence from my recent edition is (COPYVIO with or without public domain. Show me please which sentence was (COPYVIO) and I will rephrase it. As you see I tried to reach consensus with you regarding this issue. I will consult further with others, regarding the issues you have raised and if advised so, I will request Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Please read carefully my text- you will see that there are no (COPYVIO)

See your Talk page for a demonstration of your WP:COPYVIO. Keep it up and you'll be reported to WP:CCI. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Peratis

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

In November 2011, J Street co-founder and board member Kathleen Peratis visited with members of Hamas in the Gaza Strip telling about Hamas' illegal tunnel smuggling operations.[2] Peratis, who also co-chairs the Middle East and North Africa Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch raised concerns about her visit with Hamas even though it was not a J Street sponsored trip[3], with one J Street official saying that "Peratis does not speak for the group on this issue."[4] And J Street spokesperson Jessica Rosenblum added that "J Street believes that Hamas' consistent opposition to the peace process, its support for terror against Israeli civilians, its use of violence for political purposes and its denial of the Holocaust are reprehensible." In addition, J Street issued a statment which said, "J Street strongly regrets the recent meetings by its Board member Kathleen Peratis with members of Hamas and the articles that she has written about her visit to Gaza."[5]

The fact is, this controversy—according to the paragraph itself—has nothing to do with J Street. Maybe it belongs in an article on Human Rights Watch (Peratis is identified in the original article as "co-chair of the Middle East and North Africa Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch"). "Even though it was not a J Street sponsored trip" and "'Peratis does not speak for [J Street] on this issue'", can somebody explain why this belongs in an article about J Street? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh?! There are four sourced presented. Two out of the four have "J Street" in the headline. A third source is J Street itself discussing the visit. How can anyone reasonably argue that this has nothing to do with "J Street"? I fully agree wiht Soosim and PlotS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. This is silly. The statement probably should be slightly revised for clarity but clearly merits inclusion given the sources presented. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Malik seems to think he owns this page, censoring anything remotely critical of J street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katy Loves Hamas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, Plot Spoiler, please make this sockpuppet go away and leave it to you guys, legitimate editors, to resolve. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoyland, you have as much power as myself over this obvious sockpuppet troll. This is not the first time you have accused me of facilitating sockpuppetry because an obvious sock agreed with me. I will have to ask you again to please stop. There is nothing I can do to stop sockpuppets and the suggestion that I can is disingenuous and misleading. Indeed as I suggested the last time you brought this up, the fact that you appear to be around sockpuppets is as much -- if not more -- evidence that you are facilitating sock-puppetry. The sockpuppetry here is obvious and his comment is not taken seriously by anyone. You appear to be taking advantage of this sockpuppet to create a red herring instead of making any substantive comments, as you suggested you will when you reverted . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Malik and I are currently discussing this (whether homophobic comments made by a board member of Emergency Committee for Israel should be included in the article). I'm inclined to think that comments by board members of an organization may be given a (brief, for the sake of WP:UNDUE) mention in the article. But, what does everyone here think? (I'm at least glad that Malik took a principled, not biased, stand on the issue).VR talk 07:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

as the editor who added it, i agree that it can be revised, but seems that it certainly belongs based on the references. Soosim (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources make a direct connection to J-street so there is no doubt is should be added to the article.--Shrike (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To summarize:

  • There are three sources that document that J Street had nothing to do with Peratis visiting Hamas, strongly disagreed, and advised her against it.
  • The fourth source is an opinion column. Related to this visit, the author's brief against J Street is that it reprinted an article from the Forward. He also enunciates other reasons for not liking J Street.

If there is anything encylopedia-worthy about distributing an article from Peratis' trip, it is the Forward that published it! Go add a paragraph there. But it seems well-documented that J Street had nothing to do with the trip, and I don't understand why anybody would want to include a paragraph here. M.boli (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is inconsistent with our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy ("verifiability, not truth"). The more it is documented in reliable sources that J Street was unconnected to her actions the greater the basis for inclusion, because the multitude of sources is indicative of the notability of the controversy. If this is a controversy related to J Street and its clear that the reliable sources treat that way, it must for the sake of being complete and neutral be included in this article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia.

  • You are talking about a transient news item, the news being that a few people jumped to a wrong conclusion. That J Street did nothing controversial argues that nothing lasting will likely come of it.
  • Including a long paragraph on the incident then has a "doth protest too much" undue weight problem. It effectively immortalizes the error.

In the spirit of compromise, let me suggest a simpler statement would be better. Maybe something like this:

In 2011 J Street board member Kathleen Peratis visited with Hamas. The meeting, which was controversial in the pro-Israel community, had been opposed ahead of time by J Street, which condemned it afterward.[refs]

Anyway, that's my two cents. M.boli (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

POV in introduction

J Street describes itself as a pro-Israel organization, which supports peace between Israel and its neighbors. Some Israelis, including several public figures, have said that J-Street is anti-Israel, particularly in relation to key challenges facing the Jewish state.[1][2][3] Several US Jewish leaders have expressed reservations about J Street's position on Israel, and some have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization.[4][5]

"Other people", eg. MJ Rosenberg, think J Street was the way young jewish Americans, disenchanted by Israel, could again be won over for Israel. http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/commentary/walking-j-street

Even in Knesset, J Street got support. It is not WP:NPOV to bring a sentence like that to the introduction (more in a "Controversy"-paragraph), and most certainly not when just one-sidedly listing criticism on J-Street.

Please consider moving this paragraph, after it complies to WP:NPOV, to a separate heading; and DO NOT re-post it until J Street supporters are added. "J Street describes itself..." does belong to the first introductory sentence, but in this context, it is suggested that although J Street "describes itself...", it is not seen as such and does not act like that. --141.70.81.136 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the negative response to J Street by Israeli and US Jewish officials is certainly worthy of a sentence or two in the lede - it does take up a good chunk of the article after all. I would prefer adding a sentence or two to describe support for J Street to removing this material.GabrielF (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with GabrielF. The lede as it was may have given too much weight to those opposed to J Street, but it can't ignore them altogether. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
hardly gives too much weight to those opposed (two sentences). the issue is that it is not npov, but rather, a clear issue of the intended recipient of assistance saying it is controversial and has issues. i would be happy to see proposals for change before actual changes are made. Soosim (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

This article confuses the reader; there are a number of Washington, DC area institutions with the name J Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolfe7 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And when they have Wikipedia articles, there should be a disambiguation hatnote to help readers navigate between them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you created J Street Consulting. I'll add a hatnote to help readers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Finklestein quote

there is a dispute as to how to use the material from the source. option 1 is to use it in the order it is presented. option 2 is to reverse the order (due to writing style). perhaps there are other options. your opinions are welcome. Soosim (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

The article quotes Finkestein for two sentences describing J Street. The blogger separately characterizes a single word quotation as refering to J Street "leadership." It is not responsible to grab this single word and feature it, especially when the full two-sentence quote is much less ambiguous. Regardless, if you like the word I won't fight that, but I think I'll recast the sentence so that that unambiguous stuff is first. Also, Kadima is the party with the most seats in the Knesset, it has been that way for two elections now. It was part of the previous government. Saying that J Street identifies with Kadima is a lot stronger than saying they identify with "part of the opposition." M.boli (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

malik - why are you insisting on re-ordering the information from the RS? finkelstein says x + y, and you want to write that he said y + x. it puts it in a different context, and seems to me that you might be insisting on a certain POV. why would you say 'we are writing our own summary' as an excuse, when my edit uses your exact words, just in the order that they are found in the RS. please help us understand this.... and i would love to hear from mboli since he had, at first, wanted it y + x but then agreed to the original x + y. Soosim (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to follow the order of the source slavishly. Can you explain how summarizing the interview in a fashion so it builds from general criticism to specific criticism—the proper way to write a paragraph—"puts it in a different context"? If anything, it puts the single word into context. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the meaning of "hopeless" stripped of its context. Does Finkelstein think J Street is hopelessly stuck in the mainstream of Israeli politics and is not providing political leadership? Is he saying that Ben-Ami is hopeless because Ben-Ami won't listen to Finklestein? It rather looks like the blogger liked the sound of a negative-valance adjective applied to J Street and ran with that.
The "hopeless" quote does seem to mean something to Soosim, however. So there is something to be said for including it. Yea though we disagree, Soosim was doing the Wikipedia thing--progressively improving the paragraph, incorporating the best parts of my revisions. I am also grateful to Soosim for bringing Finklesten's quote comparing J Street to Kadima. It is substantive, clear as to its meaning, and a refreshing step up from the soundbite-from-a-blowhard that too frequently passes for quotable commentary. (I say that even though I'm pretty sure I have little in common with Finkelstein.) In all things Wikipedia I try to maintain perspective.
By the way, a tip of the hat to Malik Shabazz. He writes exceptionally well, very often expresses clearly and cogently the reasoning that I muddle through, and works hard at keeping the crud out and the articles straightforward. Malik: you are humbling. M.boli (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
malik, using the word 'slave'....really? anyway - the quote needs to be in order for it to be understood. norman says that j street leadership is hopeless, and then explains why - or least, explains what he meant, that, like kadima, they are really not doing very much.... again, not sure why you would purposely re-arrange it. Soosim (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please, Soosim. We're not interviewing Finkelstein, we're summarizing (a very small portion of) an interview. We should write it in the best fashion for prose, not as a transcription of an interview. You keep saying that it's changed the meaning. Please explain how. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
i explained how, malik. will try again, of course. norman says x and then adds y to 'flesh it out' a bit. by reversing it (for which there is no justification, in any case), you are changing what he said by placing the emphasis on the wrong part of the quote, by distracting people from his hopeless quote when you need to explain what is kadima and why they are what they are, etc. and you make it seem that the hopeless remark was both an afterthought and not connected to the kadima info. poor writing, malik. that is why. Soosim (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No, proper writing. Start with the general and work to the specific. Sorry, Soosim. Start an RfC if you don't like it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see what "hopeless" means. For me, any meaning assigned to that word in this reference must be imputed. Having to impute the meaning seems counter to the idea of an encyclopedia explanation, no? (By comparison, "Kadima" is explained. It means the "loyal opposition" aspect of Kadima, as opposed to some other aspect of Kadima.) But "hopeless" may mean something to Soosim. Sometimes language has meaning in certain communities of discourse that I don't know about: "hopeless" might be code for something. In which case, I think the burden is to explain it. M.boli (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Mix it up, copying the order of another work (including just doing it backwards) is plagiarism anyways in addition to just being shoddy work.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious May 13 Edit

I'm having trouble understanding the intended import of May 13's edit by Soosim. If there was something unusual about this particular visit, it is not described in the edit or the source. What made it different from a garden-variety everyday visit, such as this one, where AIPAC brought a passel of Congress Critters? M.boli (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keinon, Herb (August 8, 2011). "81 Congressmen to Visit Israel in Coming Weeks". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved November 27, 2011.
certainly didn't mean to be mysterious...i think it is quite impressive that a jewish group went to ramallah and met with abbas. this is not an official US gov't thing with congressmen, etc. but a jewish non-profit. if it is not unusual, then delete it. sorry. Soosim (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything mysterious about it, I just think it's in the wrong section. I think we should also consider including other J Street activities, such as Congressional delegations they lead to Israel. I'm just not sure where they belong the way the article is currently structured. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

to answer my friend malik's rfc: because recent makes more sense than historical. someone reading an entry will be more concerned about more recent events than something which happened 5 years ago. if that is of interest as well, then s/he will continue to read. not sure why you feel this is a problem? Soosim (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a section titled "Reception" should start with the earliest reception of the organization, as the article currently does, and move to the most recent.
Can you point me to any other articles that are written in reverse chronological order, as you propose? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
i can, but won't. wiki's "other things exist" and whatnot...ya know. this has to stand on its own. why start with something which is 5 years old? Soosim (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the group is five years old, and its reception starts five years ago? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
and next year they will be six years old? Soosim (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition and critics views do not belong in the lead

Most Wikipedia articles about organizations working to influence public opinion in the United States, including American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Brady Campaign, National Rifle Association, Focus on the Family, and NARAL Pro-Choice America, omit or barely mention opposition and critics in the lead paragraphs. American Israel Public Affairs Committee mentions the existence of critics in the third paragraph, but only for the purposes of stating that there is a range of views on where organization fits in the liberal–conservative U.S. political spectrum, not for putting forth any actual criticism of the organization. It is inappropriate for such criticisms of J Street to appear in the lead, especially supported by biased sources as Christian Broadcasting Network (founded by Pat Robertson), Commentary, and neoconservative Jennifer Rubin. And the Washington Post piece is listed as if it were a news story, when it is actually a blog entry. These biased criticisms don't belong in the lead, and I am soon going to move them out of the lead, unless someone else beats me to it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Important Development
View from the left http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/us/jewish-coalition-rejects-lobbying-groups-bid-to-join.html?_r=0
View from Israel: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8249&r=1 Ridingdog (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why this article is 1RR??

There is no justification for putting every organization with some views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, under 1RR. This has to be changed. J Street is not part of the conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on J Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs clean up

This article needs some major clean up. Anybody interested in helping?--PPX (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Simone Zimmerman, fired by Bernie Sanders

Zimerman was the national president of the student branch of J Street. Now she is a national news story. MalikShabazz removed the brief description of her firing from the article on the grounds that "it has nothing to do with JStreet." Given her recent JStreet role, that is not a valid argument. I think she should be included, Shabazz disagrees. Anyone else want to weight in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Wow! that tag-team deletion by 2 of Wikipedia's most POV editors sure was fast. WP:NOTCENSORED Here are the sources for anyone who is interested: [6], NY Times article ran the full length of a page, one-column wide in the national section of the print edition. Here are her posts [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You need to follow WP:BRD. I have told you this before several times. It's very simple. Don't edit war. I don't care about the issue, not even a little bit, but every time I see you not following BRD I will revert you. So if you don't want to be bothered by what you describe as one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", an evidence-less and weak-minded personal attack, you just need to follow BRD. It's easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Except, of course that adding mention of a major JStreet related news story is hardly a "bold" move. On the other hand, Shabaazz was extremely bold to revert with the false justification that this is not JStreet related. News search: [8] I wish you would both put dwn the WP:BLUDGEONS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide a reason why a major national news story about JStreet's recent national president of the student division doesn't belong in the article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Its simple. The addition was reverted by an experienced editor in good standing who meets the 30/500 criteria and explained their reasoning. That means the onus is on you to discuss the issue and gain consensus for its inclusion. There are plenty of tools available to bring other parties into the discussion. If you are confident that your view is correct on the issue of inclusion from a policy perspective, you presumably would not expect to have any trouble convincing participants in the discussion, so you have nothing to be concerned about. I'll add something else for interest. While you, very stupidly I might add, assume my revert is a manifestation of my being one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", it is in fact a consequence of the non-existence of a bot that automatically enforces BRD. When there are bots to suppress the kind of aggressive, disruptive edit warring behavior you have exhibited over and over again you will not see me at all because I do not want to be anywhere near editors like you. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Simone Zimmerman is such a well known J Street activist that she's already mentioned in this article, isn't she? Oh wait, she isn't. But she's mentioned prominently in our article about J Street U, right? Oh, she isn't? Sorry, E.M.Gregory. Yet another pathetic but unsuccessful attempt at POV pushing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tzippe Barrow (2011-03-27). "Israeli Knesset Confronts 'J Street' - Inside Israel - CBN News - Christian News 24-7". CBN.com. Retrieved 2011-09-07.
  2. ^ "Archived-Articles: J Street: 'Maybe Israel really ain't a good idea'". Americanthinker.com. 2011-07-28. Retrieved 2011-09-07.
  3. ^ "Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren Blasts J Street « Commentary Magazine". Commentarymagazine.com. 2011-01-31. Retrieved 2011-09-07.
  4. ^ "Rep. Gary Ackerman blasts J Street". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ The Washington Post. March 21, 2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/j-street-at-it-again-attacking-efforts-to-defend-israel/2011/03/04/AB6Jq07_blog.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J_Street/Archive_3&oldid=1136831229"