Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2938bcd2a7e5751

Jump to content

Talk:Israel lobby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by 71.102.136.107 in topic "Controversial"

"Controversial"

[edit]

AIPAC is also controversial, but we don't mention that here. Ashley Y 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the M&W paper appears here precisely because it is controversial. It's controversy is the essence of its appearing on this disambiguity page (this is not the same thing as saying that contoversy is the essence of the paper itself). Whether or not AIPAC is controversial (and, perhaps you meant that some of AIPAC'S activities are controversial rather than AIPAC itself; perhaps not), it would still need to appear on this disambiguation page. AIPAC's (perceived) controversial nature is not the essence of it's entry here.Dasondas 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for the poor use of apostrophes; it's an old bad habit that still shows itself sometimes when I'm not careful)Dasondas 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Adding and removing qualifies like "controversial" is a great pastime of people on Wikipedia. --Deodar 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, discussing it is a great pastime of some other people.Dasondas 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Discussing it is usually considered preferable. Ashley Y 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I meant "discussing" in the sense of idly commenting on the arbitrary practice of adding and removing qualifiers. Discussing the actual appropriateness of a specific qualifier in a given situation, like you and I are (were) doing, is productive IMO.Dasondas 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The mention wasn't idle; it highlighted the fact that the qualifier "controversial" is POV or OR unless the characterization is cited. -- 71.102.136.107 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jewish lobby removed?

[edit]

Why was the phrase "Jewish lobby" removed from this page? The phrases "Jewish lobby" and "Israel(i) lobby" are often used synonymously/interchangeably; also, we have the "Israel lobby" redirect listed on the "Jewish lobby" disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby_%28disambiguation%29), so why not vice versa? --WassermannNYC 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply