Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 30 October 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (April 2008—August 2009)

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."

]

]

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 Misplaced Pages editors paraphrase the quotation? — ] (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. — ] (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. — ] (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. — ] (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? — ] (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. — ] (talk · contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, you haven't answered the question once. — ] (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 Misplaced Pages: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? — ] (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 Misplaced Pages 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. — ] (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)

new article

from American Thinker JStreet is selling snake oil Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

I would like to see a section with the criticism or controversy surrounding this org neatly laid out, and another section with the JStreet perspective, instead of the current method which is just a list of back-and-forth and is (really) difficult to read and understand as presented. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article

This may be of interest. An article by Chris McGreal, the Guardian's Washington correspondent from 23 October 2009. Who speaks for America's Jews? J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts' grip on Congress Sean.hoyland - talk 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"College Campus Activity"

An editor recently created a new "College Campus Activity" section under heading "Activities", consisting solely of this sentence:

J Street's campus arm has dropped the "pro-Israel" part of its slogan to avoid alienating those college students which would find the tag offensive. J Street Campus Branch drops 'Pro-Israel" Slogan

Since the sentence doesn't say anything about J Street's college activities, I've reverted it and moved it here for safe-keeping. — ] (talk · contribs) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ZOA press release

J Street's Ben Ami Worked For Firm That Helped Set Up Anti-Israel Campus Campaign Oct 20th 2009 - (ouch!) Well worth a read, come to one's own conclusions. Perhaps some of this might be worked into the article. After all, the ZOA is a pretty relevant org, no? Stellarkid (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A press released based on a blog! Now that's a reliable source if ever I saw one. — ] (talk · contribs) 06:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Fenton communications campaign for women's rights too, shocking! Interesting how "advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza" becomes Anti-Israel. What's slightly more puzzling is the mismatch between what ZOA say and what the documents http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-4.pdf and http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-3.pdf say. I assume the ZOA aren't opposed to "protecting education from violence during war or conflicts, specifically in Gaza". Still, it's pretty shocking that the Qatar Foundation are trying to raise awareness of the state of education in Gaza and the West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

..having said that, unless someone establishs that this has anything to do with Ben Ami it's not relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not relevant to the Gaza War! or Women's Rights! But I guess you were just indulging in a little soapboxing, eh? But not relevant to Ben Ami or J Street? Considering that he is headlined one would think so, but I guess you know more about this sort of thing than I. Stellarkid (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. I was simply indulging in some sarcasm for my own amusement because I'm contantly amazed by the blatant misrepresentation that goes on out there in the real world. In order to soapbox you need to care about these issues and I don't. What I care about is the quality of sourcing and information in Misplaced Pages. It's important to be able to distinguish between high quality sources that provide accurate/balanced information supported by empirical evidence and propaganda. Many editors seem to be somewhat blind in this respect probably through no fault of their own. Apparently you didn't understand what I meant by "unless someone establishs that this has anything to do with Ben Ami it's not relevant". I am referring specifically to the guilt by association, sleight-of-hand, typical-of-propagandists statement in the ZOA document that says "It is not known if Ben-Ami severed his ties with Fenton in 2008 to take up his position with the then-newly formed J Street, whether he retained any role or holdings in Fenton thereafter or whether he was aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009 with the Qatari foundation mounting the anti-Israel campaign." To me that means "we have no information to indicate that this has anything to do with Ben-Ami". Sean.hoyland - talk 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that is why I did not add any of the material to the article. I thought perhaps there was more information and until there is, I certainly would not advocate putting it in, although there might be something in the article of value, possibly a better understanding of JStreet. This article is not about Ben Ami anyway, but an advocacy group that he steers, if I understand correctly. But as I said, I did not put it in the article but on the talk page. Considering that both JSTreet and ZOA are "pro-Israel" advocacy groups, I figured it had some relevancy and at least some interest to readers. Nothing more than that. Stellarkid (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You would not advocate putting it in? So when you said Perhaps some of this might be worked into the article that meant what exactly? This talk page is not here to provide "interest" to readers, it is here to discuss the article. This "source" does not belong in the article. nableezy - 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you wrote this before you were aware of your block in this area, so I will answer you here: I believe a sentence like this "ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “ZOA has been concerned for some time with the many and varied false and misleading claims made by J Street regarding its bona fides as a genuine pro-Israel organization." would not be unreasonable. ZOA is a very important Jewish organization and its opinions are meaningful to the Jewish community. And while it is also apparently true that Ben Ami was recently an employee of a communications company (registered under the Foreign Agent Act for Qatar) that recently received a grant "to lead an international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks on schools in Gaza" and to "assist students in developing an effective 12 month fundraising campaign to reach 100 million$ and "assist in the recruitment of student leaders on US and international college campuses" this does not mean that Ben Ami knew anything about this. Nor does this say that any of this is illegal activity. It is perfectly legal as long as it is duly registered. The links presented in the article are broken, here they are & - I agree that the rest of the stuff should not be in, until and unless it becomes more mainstream. I figured that editors on a subject here would want all the latest information available on a their subject, so they can be the most informed, since they are presumably informing others. I hope this answers your question. Stellarkid (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin? nableezy was topic-banned, not blocked. The ban was put into place more than 3 hours after this message was posted. And what does any of that have to do with J Street?

ZOA is a very self-important Jewish organization whose existence is unknown to most of the Jewish community. Does ZOA have any members beside Mort Klein?

You really need to learn the difference between a press release and a news article. This is a press release, not an article, yet you repeatedly refer to it as an article.

This crankery from a right-wing nut no more belongs in the article than would a press release in which Mort Klein wrote that "ZOA has been concerned for some time with the many and varied false and misleading claims made by Jeremy Ben-Ami that he was born on Earth." — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles