Talk:The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Update Board of Advisors List

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are both dead.

Interresting link?

A text by le monde diplomatique about the drift into the right which Israel&this think-tank make..it includes a little history of influences, cites notes and sources and i don't know whether this is interesting or not. i cant asses the quality of le monde diplomatique, i never participated in the english wikipedia and the rules for sources are very strict in the german wiki

so,well, maybe the text offers some new information which can be implemented into the article?

http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/06beinin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.122.188 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

• Should the Washington Institute for Near East Policy be introduced as "a pro-Israel think tank" or should details of its policy orientation (including sympathy toward Israel's interests) be described in the body of the article?

• Should the lead reflect the article's status, activities, and mission, or should the lead reflect alleged pro-Israel policy and ties/comparisons to AIPAC?

• Should a commentator's juxtaposition of WINEP's activities with AIPAC's be included in the article?

• Should The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy be included as part of the article's neutral text or should it be included in the Criticism section?

--Shamir1 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My stance on these issues:

• If numerous, reliable sources describe them as such, then that's how we should describe them. The policy orientation has its own section in the article, so it should be mentioned in the lead as well.
• The lead should be a summary of the article, so if those things are all mentioned in the sections of the body, then they should be summarized in the lead (including the policy orientation and criticisms).
• The juxtaposition of WINEP and AIPAC depends on the context. WINEP was founded by former members of AIPAC, one of whom explicitly stated his goal in starting WINEP was to form a group that was taken more seriously than AIPAC, making the juxtaposition his own. In that context, I think it makes sense.
• That book passed a check at the reliable sources noticeboard for being a reliable source for some things. Aspects of it that are critical should be in the criticism section, and aspects of it that are factual, and non-critical (discussing the groups founding, listing its members, and outlining its policy orientation) can be included in neutral text.

That's my stance. ← George ^talk 06:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should convey the major points of the article. The political leaning of the organization is in my opinion such a point, and it can be well sourced as well from sources in addition to the book:

• a think tank that is widely viewed as a pro-Israeli lobbyist group (CNN)
• think-tank seen as close to Aipac (Independent)
• a pro- Israel think-tank (Independent)

I agree with George concerning the last two points. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the group should be described in the first instance as a "think tank", not a "pro-Israel think tank", with the claim that it is pro-Israel backed up by sources in the lead if it's informative. That way, we allow the reader to judge the pro-Israel claim based on sources rather than a seemingly factual description, because political sympathies are subjective. That is to say, I think the status quo is fine. Second, the lead should reflect both activities and sympathies; the sympathies inform us about the details of the activities. However, I don't think that the lead should contain criticisms, because they should be developed in greater "critical" detail, whereas the lead should be a summary, so it should not allow for the necessary detail to present the criticisms fairly. I agree with contributor George on the third and fourth questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtSwimTwoBirds (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My stance:

• #1) No, it's well poisoning.
• #2) It should be mentioned in the lead that it was founded by pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC but not that the think tank itself is pro-Israel. The fact that the question of it being pro-Israel is so prominent in the lead is WP:Undue weight as it does not reflect the breadth of the organization in any which way. Hence I would agree with Shamir1 that "the lead reflect the article's status, activities, and mission."
• #3) I don't see a reason why not as it is important to understand what the relationship between WINEP and AIPAC is today. Do they have any sort of formal or even informal relationship or has WINEP distanced itself from those that established it? Problematically though, the article is framed in such a way that it does not establish this question and instead assumes that they one and the same organism. That should be addressed.
• #4) W&M's book should not be used in the policy orientation section as the entire book is one sustained attack on the pro-Israel lobby. The language used in the quote currently in the article is not of a neutral nature and is being applied as a critique of the organization.Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Plot Spoiler, please hold off on implementing your edits until this RfC is finished, and/or we achieve some consensus on the changes. Cheers. ← George ^talk 07:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. 1) I agree that political sympathies are subjective. I believe such details should be descriptive and clear. The broad majority of times the Washington Institute is mentioned in the media it is mentioned as a research center on Middle East affairs (see my links above). When mentioned in the media, they usually cite their insight or commentary on a number of issues pertaining to the Middle East. Israel and "pro-Israel" are not usually mentioned. Israel is only a fraction of their focus, no more concentrated on in their studies than other Middle Eastern nations or current events.

In context, we can find: "In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests, on 'Building Security in the Broader Middle East.'" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6D8163EF930A25752C1A9609C8B63&pagewanted=3

That is why I propose in the body of the article: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. It's to the point and can apply to a number of broad issues in context. It does not go against the Institute's stated mission, it is based on a mainstream source, and it is not problematic. It is also neutral in terms of subjectivity, but gives the reader the opportunity to see this view.

1. 3) The juxtaposition of two separate groups is flaxed, not just because the two groups have different missions and goals, but because of the content of the sentence. Contrary to what the sentence suggests, AIPAC does not and has never contributed to political campaigns, nor do they endorse candidates. Untrue statements should not be here.
2. 4) There are no neutral facts they have investigated or detail in the Walt and Mearsheimer article. The statement is criticism alone. Criticism from a non-objective source belongs in criticism. All their details are premises to the argument they are trying to make, which is criticism. Nearly all articles on Wikipedia that mention the paper put it in the Criticism or Controversy section, including the ones I mentioned above. There is no reason this should be any different. --Shamir1 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is the description disputed, I mean in reliable sources? Sole Soul (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no. While not every single article that mentions WINEP describes them as having a pro-Israel orientation, I don't know of any reliable sources that dispute the term, nor any that say that the group doesn't have a pro-Israel orientation. ← George ^talk 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1.Yes, it is. The New York Times says it was a misstatement to call the Washington Institute a pro-Israeli group, and they refrain from doing so. I agree with the editors above who say that a term like "pro-Israel" is subjective, and that is why I proposed an descriptive and uncontroversial sentence (based on another New York Times article): The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests.[7] The dispute is not about whether or not the Washington Institute is "pro-Israel," but whether that description should be in context and explained in the body of the article. Editors seem to agree that the lead should introduce the organization a Middle East policy think tank or research center. Discussion of policy orientation can be elaborated in the appropriate section in the article.

2. The juxtaposition of two separate groups (in Policy Orientation) is flawed because of the content of the sentence. Contrary to what the sentence suggests, AIPAC does not make campaign contributions, nor do they endorse candidates. Untrue statements should not be here.

3. The lead George is changing seems problematic. It seems cherry-picked (synthesizing two sources which name the founder) and does not address the activities or mission of the organization. The "in contrast to AIPAC's partisan image" was taken out of context. This was the perception Indyk had for wanting to publish research that would be taken more seriously or credibly through a new organization. That sentence is describing the way he feels about the situation. It is not intended, as User:George has written, as a primary distinction of the two groups. That belongs in the group's history, where it already is. No reason for it to be written twice. (This source says Martin Indyk was the founder, as other sources do.) Please consider the factual and neutral proposed lead above, that briefly describes its mission, activities, and its board of advisors. All other details and history can be rightfully elaborated on in their proper sections in the body of the article. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Shamir1's comments and I think he is being exceedingly flexible to your concerns, George, especially when you've been guilty of well poisoning, POV edits and simply contributing false information to the article. I will hope that you will compromise and agree on using "The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests" rather than the subjective "pro-Israel" label. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does the NY Times say it is a "misstatement" to call the WINEP a "pro-Israel" group? The only time it uses that word is in a correction that says "misstated the name of a Washington policy institute whose deputy director, Patrick Clawson, commented that the entire international community needs to put pressure on Iran. It is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, not Near Eastern." Sure it is a "misstatement" to call them the "Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy", but they dont say it is a "misstatement" to call them a "pro-Israel" group. nableezy - 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, In this correction appended in the New York Times they state that they misstated calling WINEP a pro-Israeli group. Note that the dispute is not over whether or not this group is pro-Israel. Consensus seems to have it that "pro-Israel" is not the main descriptor of the group, that is a subjective perception, and that the lead should reflect its main description. I nonetheless believe that readers should see this perception and I included it in the suggested version below as detailed in the section "Activities and policy orientation." This makes it clear and comprehensive, in keeping with both verifiability and neutrality. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see the last part of the correction earlier, I see it now. But as George says, the correction tells us how they describe themselves, not how RSs describe them. nableezy - 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The NYT piece only says that they do not describe themselves as pro-Israel, which has nothing to do with how Wikipedia or most reliable sources describe them. And even if one source avoids the term, as you suggest, you're ignoring the plethora of reliable sources cited in the article that do describe the group as such. ← George ^talk 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy, the source nonetheless says it was a misstatement to call it that and the Times corrected that in the article. That's the significance of that. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The suggested edit below encompasses that view completely and entirely, and elaborates that perception in a neutral and factual fashion. That perception is not ignored and we are lucky to be able to follow the example of another source bound by neutrality that addresses the same very view the other sources do in a descriptive way. Again, there is already consensus over what the lead should cover.

Please consider our concerns and suggestions, George. I have outlined those concerns and made a comprehensive suggestion below. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not what? You're claiming that multiple reliable sources don't describe the group as pro-Israel? ← George ^talk 01:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if you are confusing two issues. Discussion of policy orientation on an issue should has its place in the article. Editors agree that "pro-Israel think tank" is not the appropriate description in the lead. The lead should describe it is as what it is, a think tank on Middle East policy, as we agree and as it had been described in basic terms here and elsewhere. If that is the perception of a source, it can be cited as that. It should be included. I never said that because most sources that refer to WINEP do not mention Israel or pro-Israel that it should not appear anywhere in the article or that it trumps all sources that do (which it appears you suggest I am suggesting). I am saying we should be clear about the issue, as mainstream media is, and encompass such a view in the appropriate place in the article. My suggested edit does that, and cites a reliable source that demonstrates the view that the public has of its policy. --Shamir1 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes you think that "editors agree" that pro-Israel isn't an appropriate term to have in the lead. Looking through the discussion above, I see myself, Dailycare, and AtSwimTwoBirds supporting its usage in the lead, while only yourself and Plot Spoiler oppose its inclusion. I think we all agree that we should include details on its policy orientation in the body of the article, though we may differ on where in the body is the best place. For now, it probably makes sense to focus on the lead issue, and get that resolved first. ← George ^talk 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're being completely unamenable and you haven't offered any of your own solutions. So I don't see how this is going to "get resolved." You are rejecting a very reasonable compromise that continues to clearly say what WINEP's policy orientation in an even more detailed way. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Guess what, the status quo is a solution, and it's not like I've already moved the pro-Israel descriptive label to the end of the lead or anything, based on his first bullet point and your concerns about well poisoning. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove material, and if anyone suggests changes that I feel aren't in line with Wikipedia's policies, regardless of the topic, I will oppose them. If broad, generic complaints are replaced with more specific, more granular proposals, we may have an easier time reaching a compromise, but I haven't seen that done yet. I've already expressed to Shamir1 my willingness to advance the dispute resolution to the mediation phase, so accusations that I'm unamenable are completely unwarranted. ← George ^talk 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is based in such Wikipedia policies as WP:NPOV -- to describe WINEP's work as simply being seen through a pro-Israel lens, as is implicit, is not neutral. We are proposing a more neutral and descriptive term based on more reliable sources than you have provided. The New York Times is a more reliable source than a book by a tendentious scholar such as Zachary Lockman... but you are putting the two on par, which is simply comical. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So your claim then is that the half dozen sources that have been cited for this label, in the article itself or on this talk page, are not reliable, despite having been found to be reliable sources for this specific term on the reliable sources noticeboard? Is the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World non-neutral because it describes the group as "a pro-Israeli 'think tank,' that essentially served as a proxy [for AIPAC]"? And what does the NYT article say - that the group doesn't describe itself as pro-Israel? Nobody disputes that. Is there a suggested rewording in your response? Would you like me to change the last sentence to "The group is often described as being pro-Israel, but does not describe itself as such."? I'm amenable to that. If your goal is compromise, then at least put forth the effort of making a suggestion for what to change instead of making blanket complaints about the multiple sources that have already passed a reliability check. ← George ^talk 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You fail to understand that NYT attributed a correction because the editors themselves saw there was an issue there. I'm sure there have been many complaints from groups arguing they were misrepresented, but NYT wouldn't necessarily publish a correction. In this case, there is import to WINEP's claims, so they appended a correction. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The correction covered three things: using the wrong name for the group (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Affairs), misspelling the name of the Israeli senior fellow at WINEP whom they quoted, and the misstatement of the group's mission. I fully agree that the groups stated mission is not to be pro-Israel, and the current wording in the article doesn't say that. However, just because that's not their stated mission, doesn't mean that it's not their policy orientation. If you have any sources that say their policy is not pro-Israel, or it's incorrect to describe them as being pro-Israel, I'm more than willing to review them. They are so widely describe as being pro-Israel, that I have no doubt that multiple, reliable sources should exist disputing the label, if it's inaccurate. ← George ^talk 20:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The significance of the correction is that it was nonetheless a misstatement to describe them as "a pro-Israeli group" and they refrain from doing so. I am not saying that policy orientation is irrelevant; I'm saying it should be in context. When reading references to WINEP in the media, and they are cited very often, the vast majority of times they are cited as a Middle East think tank or research center, and our lead should reflect that, just as it had always done before your changes. Their focus is not on Israel. The vast majority of times they are being cited for a broad array of Middle East issues and current events and Israel is not even mentioned, so we should not give a misleading image by bumping up an opinion to the lead. In context, when Israel or Israel's interests are at hand, I have found, per The New York Times that the institute is considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. Mainstream newspapers maintain a high standard of objectivity, and this well-worded description can serve as a model for us when we try to encompass the view that their policy toward Israel has been mostly favorable. This way, all views are represented, and as an encyclopedia we live up to NPOV and objectivity. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization that seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by Martin Indyk in 1985, the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State.

References

Suggested edits

This is about how the article appeared before an edit war erupted. I am in favor using a descriptive lead that refers to its mission, activities, and notability. I oppose tendentious changes that use the same sentence or phrase twice in the same article, especially if it appears to be twisted out of context. User:George used what would be a rather trivial detail from an old Washington Post article that refers to Martin Indyk deciding to publish research under a new organization he founds, and places it twice in the article. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the background section.

This same article cites Martin Indyk as the founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and that's what Wikipedia stuck with too. For some reason, User:George does not use this part of the Post source and instead added another source that states that the organization AIPAC founded the Washington Institute, but this has not been confirmed by other reliable sources. Martin Indyk writes that he founded it, and mainstream sources other than the Washington Post report that too, including Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations),[8], Haaretz, [9] and The Jerusalem Post.[10][11]

The issue of the founder is not one I am particular passionate about, but I do believe discussion should be opened. I am more concerned about the neutrality of the article.

In an effort to heed the concerns of all editors above, I have compiled a suggested version of the article. I stuck to the straight facts and included verifiable criticism in the proper places.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization whose stated aim is "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by (Martin Indyk/AIPAC) in 1985, the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State.

Background

Martin Indyk, an Australian-trained academic and former deputy director of research for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), helped found WINEP in 1985. In 1982, following his position as Australian deputy director of current intelligence in the Middle East, Indyk started to set up a research department for AIPAC. Because of AIPAC's pro-Israel image, Indyk felt his research wasn't being taken seriously and so started WINEP to convey an image that was "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way." Indyk would go on to become an American citizen, U.S. diplomat and its Ambassador to Israel.

The Washington Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, and derives 87 percent of its operating revenues through direct public support. As of 2005, its list of trustees included more than 600 names, including Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, managing editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, real estate developer A. Alfred Taubman, and philanthropist Edgar Bronfman.

Activities and policy orientation

WINEP is focused on influencing the media and U.S. executive branch Its activities include annual conferences, a Military Fellows Program that "brings together senior officers from the armed forces of the United States and key Middle Eastern allies", a Presidential Study Group it describes as a "bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission charged with drafting a blueprint for the next administration's Middle East policy", closed-door policy forums, and various publications and research programs.

At the time it was founded, the institute focused research on Arab-Israeli relations, political and security issues, and overall U.S. Middle East policy. In the 1990s, prompted by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and changes in regional strategy, the institute expanded its research agenda to cover a larger array of Middle East topics, including a "special focus on Turkey and the rise of Islamic politics." The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests.

According to its mission statement,

“ The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East. Under the guidance of a distinguished and bipartisan Board of Advisors, the Institute seeks to bring scholarship to bear on the making of U.S. policy in this vital region of the world. Drawing on the research of its scholars and the experience of policy practitioners, the Institute promotes an American engagement in the Middle East committed to strengthening alliances, nurturing friendships, and promoting security, peace, prosperity, and democracy for the people of the region. ”

Former Vice President Al Gore called WINEP "Washington's most respected center for studies on the Middle East."

Criticism

In October 2003, the Zionist Organization of America criticized WINEP for "embracing" a delegation of representatives of "the Fatah terrorist movement".

In a December 2003 interview on Al-Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States." Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes."

John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks.

Notable current and former scholars

Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,.

Board of Advisors

As of November 4, 2009, the Washington Institute's Board of Advisors included:

• Warren Christopher, former Secretary of State
• Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former Secretary of State
• Alexander Haig, former Secretary of State
• Max Kampelman, former American diplomat
• Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State
• Samuel W. Lewis, former United States Ambassador to Israel
• Edward Luttwak, Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Michael Mandelbaum, Director of the American Foreign Policy program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
• Robert McFarlane, former National Security Advisor
• Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic
• Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense
• James Roche, former Secretary of the Air Force
• George Shultz, former Secretary of State
• R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
• Mortimer Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report

See also

• Turkish Research Program

References

This version would be very good, if the goal was to write a brochure advertising the group. But Wikipedia's goal is simply to create neutral articles attributed to reliable sources. Your version, unfortunately, doesn't do that. Perhaps try suggesting single, small changes that we can work towards compromising on, instead of taking an over the top sledgehammer approach and rewriting the entire article. ← George ^talk 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Extremely rude. The article has only little difference with your version. I have already suggested single small changes and the above version reflects the difference. Your inference that I re-wrote everything is not true--in fact, it is extremely far from it. Most of it is the same. Some minor differences include placing Walt and Mearshimer's criticism in the criticism section, where it had long been. I also got rid of one of the sentences that you had written twice in the article. Where is your allegation that I changed everything coming from? Seriously? George, please assume good faith and keep a level head.

Other editors voiced concerns over the lead you have written George, and I suggest you heed our concerns. Did someone writing a brochure write the leads of the New America Foundation and the Heritage Foundation? The suggested edit is on par with those articles. All verifiable criticism and details of policy orientation are properly encompassed and elaborated on in the body of the article. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if my attempt at humor came across as being rude, though I do find this version to be quite poor and out of line with regards to Wikipedia policies on neutrality. I'm not familiar with those other articles, but neither is a good example of how to write an article on Wikipedia (one is C-class, and the other unrated). I suggest we take our disputes to mediation. ← George ^talk 01:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, American Enterprise Institute...all of these out line? Any university article (e.g., University of California, Berkeley, Harvard University), too? I think you may need to rethink some things over.

I personally think I did a great job in regards to neutrality and inclusion of facts. The lead only states plain facts, not debatable opinions, and reflects what the institute is and briefly states its activities. Can you name a specific part of the suggestion you have a problem with or how it is not line with a specific policy? Otherwise I'm not sure what you are referring to, since this suggestion was intended to find a solution and encompass all views in the proper places. The "top sledgehammer approach" is probably a more accurate description of your edits. I made careful edits per our concerns and it is not drastically different. I also fixed some of the clarity issues (i.e., the repetition of a vague sentence for unstated reasons), but otherwise the article is very, very similar. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Senior Fellows

There should be a list of current and past senior fellows. I noted the absence when looking for information on David Pollack. He is listed on the WINEP web cite. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=59 I hope someone experienced will add this. Then maybe the redirect from David Pollack(politician) to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pollack_%28politician%29, an entry on the New York State Democratic Committee can be fixed. I fail to see the connection and the entry does not mention Pollack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.216.243 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) edited to correct a link.

Dailycare edits

In response to Dailycare's good-fath edits:

Although some sources have described the Institute as "pro-Israel" and it has has remained a staunch supporter of Israel, the Institute has earned a reputation for solid scholarship, and rejects such a label, saying "While the institute is not shy about its view that strong United States-Israel ties advance American national security interests, the moniker 'pro-Israel' projects two false impressions -- first, that the institute does not value American interests above special pleading for a foreign power and second, that the institute must be 'anti' others in the region (Palestinians, Arabs)." It adds:

The phrase that was added by Dailycare ("and a staunch supporter of Israel") makes it a run-on sentence, incredibly redundant, and awkward. I see no reason why this ("pro-Israel, ... and a staunch supporter of Israel, ... its view that strong United States-Israel ties...") should all appear in the same sentence--or the same section for that matter. The point is well-made. Please revert. Precision123 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the flow of the sentence isn't optimal, I tried to figure out a better structure but couldn't come up with one. The reason I feel the "staunch support" needs to be included is that otherwise, we're lifting the "scholarship" point from the source and leaving unused a viewpoint in the same source that's more relevant to the "pro-israel" issue. So while the "institute" self-describes itself as not necessarily pro-israel, sources do describe it as pro-israel and "staunchly" supporting Israel so that needs to be reflected in our article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Precision123. Saying that WINEP is "pro-Israel" and a "staunch supporter of Israel" in the same sentence is redundant and belabors the point. I don't see enough difference between these two phrases to justify having both of them in the same sentence. GabrielF (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is precisely that the two phrases make a somewhat similar, but not identical, point. So whereas the institute says it isn't "pro-israel", it is nonetheless a staunch supporter. The sources say that, so that's what we need to say, too. I'm of course open to a better way to phrase that. --Dailycare (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that the words may be similar "but not identical," that can be said about literally any two pair of words, so that is not convincing. What is important is what point the sentence makes, and I still fail to see what that edit above adds to the discussion or to the conclusion of the premise. As I said, I think the point is already well-made. Playing with it compromises the integrity and the readability of the article. So I thank you for your good-faith edits but suggest that, when you know it is less than readable and perhaps redundant, you discuss it first, brainstorm, or gain some sort of consensus before it is added. It is not a monumental error but I think it was one that most editors would have just avoided.

As to the use of adverbs in my compromise ("generally" vs. "staunchly"), because the phrase is paired with another noun (i.e., "the peace process"), and because it is a very general statement (taken from the context of a unique story) about an institute with a fairly large research area, "generally" appears to fit better. In two other Times articles, for example, it is referred to as "considered to be sympathetic to Israel's interests," which is a lot less sensationalized and a lot more watered-down than one other article. The Institute's scholars might say or publish something along a different line, as they did here at any time, so we should err on the safe side and use more neutral language. Precision123 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but the case remains that the source doesn't say "generally supportive", it says the "institute" is a staunch supporter which isn't the same thing as just being generally supportive. If you prefer, after the other source, to say "sympathetic to Israel's interests" I'm ok with that, if we also say just "scholarship" instead of "solid scholarship" to use the sources more consistently. How would that sound? --Dailycare (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Cleaning up POV

Some explanation:

• With all due deference to WP:PRESERVE, Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross obviously did not found AIPAC, which was established in 1951.
• Injecting an irrelevant source by Adam Roberts is WP:SYNTHESIS—a form of original research and POV. This is the same with the Fatah parenthetical.
• Stephen Walt's viewpoint is already included. Clifton and Gharib's piece, in which they barely mention WINEP—once, in passing—is neither significant nor notable.
• I'm including MJ Rosenberg, though keep in mind self-published and blog sources should not involve claims about third parties or claims supported purely by primary sources. Also I couldn't find a secondary source that says he was an AIPAC employee, so that will be shortened. Also keep in mind WP:Hearsay with regards to quoting anonymous, non-verifiable sources on a blog.

--Precision123 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed one of the passages you deleted.

There is no SYNTH involved in posting a citation, so what do you mean by irrelevant?

Etc. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Use talk, please. Of course no SYNTH is involved in simply "posting a citation." But injecting another party's argument that does not directly address the other source is not "posting a citation"—it is WP:SYNTHESIS ("If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.") --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've challenged your BOLD edit, so now you are supposed to discuss each point I've challenged, which are all of them, basically.

Moreover, you reverted the corrections I already made with respec to one point, and there was absolutely nothing POV about those corrections.

For starters, spell out specifically what "conclusions" in the text represents a synthetic claim related to the Adam Roberts source represent SYNTH, because I don't follow your argument.

I strongly suggest you self-revert right now. Violating 1RR on issues pertaining to the Arab–Israeli conflict can result in a temporary editing ban.

I already went through each source and the accompanying text above. Would you like to respond to any of those points before you engage in an edit war?

WP:SYNTHESIS: Does the Adams Roberts source say anything about the Washington Institute's report/maps described in that paragraph? Does the Washington Institute report even discuss the legality or illegality of Israeli settlements? The answer to both is no. You cannot synthesize these two sources.

The other questionable sources and text were addressed above, and some are self-explanatory to experienced editors. --Precision123 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the Roberts source eventually, but you were not right in reverting my correction to the Martin Indyk edit, which is not I/P related nor POV, as it was a correction of an apparent oversight. What is the purpose of removing that material?

If you're claiming that Roberts source doesn't support the text, using the citation is not SYNTH, it is just not a reliable source for the text.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:35, 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: [12] Ubikwit has been topic banned indefinitely except for seven named articles with regard to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined." Collect (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Collect. The changes here seem pretty straightforward and I wish Ubikwit would see that and be more constructive. It was also odd that he reverted with a message asking to explain the edits—which is exactly what was done. Considering that Ubikwit has been topic banned indefinitely, and was just now blocked for one week for edit warring on several articles (including Sam Harris), it seems right to revert to the last edit he made. --Precision123 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

pro-Israel

This is long-standing content with consensus for inclusion in the lead. Edit-warring to remove it is tendentious editing. It is also obscene to remove a second source flat out saying pro-Israel and then attribute it to one book. This is tendentious editing and if it continues I will be reporting it. nableezy - 14:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not so long standing. It is a contested label, MOS:LABEL applies, and it is covered anyway in the next paragraph. The statement attributed to the book previous began with "The institute was described in 2008..." which was a vague attribution, instead of saying what year the book was published the book name and authors were added. PrisonerB (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You think two years is not longstanding? MOS:LABEL is not about an accurate description of political viewpoints. And you removed the second source that flat out says pro-Israel, claiming it comes from one other source alone. nableezy - 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@PrisonerB: the raison d’etre of this organization is to be pro-Israel. It is the single most notable fact about the topic of this article. Removing it from the first sentence is misleading and POV. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove Thomas G. Mitchell, that source remains in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead "WINEP was established in 1985 with the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the funding of many AIPAC donors, in order to provide higher quality research than AIPAC's publications." Mitchell also doesn't say "pro-Israel", it does say " WINEP concentrates on the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries except for Israel and on the foreign and defense policies of these countries. It also provides Israel-friendly prescriptions for the peace process. WINEP has become a serious player in Washington and a supplier of foreign policy officials for both parties". The "Israel-friendly prescriptions for the peace process" is more limited that "pro-Israel". The link to AIPAC in its founding is stated in the second paragraph.PrisonerB (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Israel-friendly prescriptions" is not "pro-Israel"? The mental contortions of the human mind never cease to amaze. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Israel-friendly prescriptions for the peace process" is limited in Mitchell to to the peace process in a "it also provides". The main work of WINEP, " WINEP concentrates on the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries except for Israel and on the foreign and defense policies of these countries", is not described as pro-Israeli by Mitchell. PrisonerB (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources:

• "Pro-Israeli Group Offers Maps for Palestinian State". The New York Times. 2011-01-22. It speaks to the paralysis in the Middle East peace process that the most noteworthy development of the past week came when a mild-mannered analyst at a pro-Israel think tank unfurled three color-coded maps. The analyst, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• "Israel Captures 2 Palestinians Suspected in Deadly Ax Attack". The New York Times. 2022-05-08. Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank.
• Weiss, T.G.; Crahan, M.E.; Goering, J.; Goering, J.M.; Robinson, M. (2004). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-70062-7. as the then newly founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This organization, a pro-Israel think tank, was itself a spin-off of AIPAC
• Marrar, K. (2008). The Arab Lobby and US Foreign Policy: The Two-State Solution. Routledge Research in American Politics and Governance. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-135-97071-0. Dennis Ross, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank closely aligned with AIPAC

It is absurd to claim that it is simply a claim from one book that this is a pro-Israel think tank. This supposed label is widely used to describe WINEP, and it belongs in the first sentence. nableezy - 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Im going to restore pro-Israel and cite these four sources for it. nableezy - 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that WINEP *was* a "pro-Israel think tank" at the time of its founding. However, the modern-day WINEP strenuously rejects this label. The label "pro-Israel" in the lede is tendentious. There is actually stronger evidence for labeling it a "pro-American think tank," but of course that would also be tendentious. Calling it "pro-Israel" in the first line violates MOS:Label. Zekelayla (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It was identified as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States in 2008 - still pretty recent. What's to the contrary? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The statement in which WINEP strenuously rejected the label pro-Israel is more recent - 2011. Numerous mainstream sources refer to WINEP without calling it "pro-Israel" or similar. I'm not sure there are publications that explicitly argue that it should not be labeled as "pro-Israel," but that would be akin to publishing "negative results," which generally isn't done. Zekelayla (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So, as it stands, no secondary sources refute the information, and the only source that does is primary/self-published. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous RS that refer to WINEP as an "American think tank" without mentioning Israel, presumably because that is a more neutral and correct characterization. Zekelayla (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The self-serving statement is noted. It does not negate the reliable secondary sources that continue to regard WINEP as being pro-Israel and viewing it as a defining trait. nableezy - 18:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

They continue to be called a pro-Israel group, and the self-serving strenuous reject[ion] can be noted, but it does not negate the widespread knowledge that WINEP is in fact a pro-Israel group. In what world is "pro-Israel" a contentious label? It is discussing things like terrorist, cult, racist. And beyond that, MOS:LABEL says when reliable sources widely use such a label we can too. That is the case here. There are now four sources above that explicitly say pro-Israel as a fact. Absent reliable sources disputing that, and WINEP itself is not a reliable source on that issue, there is no dispute here. I will be restoring the material, and I remind you that this article is covered by ARBPIA and the 1RR and this material already had consensus for inclusion. Consensus can change, but youll need to demonstrate that it has. nableezy - 18:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course, WINEP is "pro-Israel" in the sense that it is generally supportive of Israeli security and so forth. But it is more "pro-American" than it is "pro-Israel". Why do you insist on the "pro-Israel" label in the lede and not "pro-American"? Because the description is tendentious in a direction you support. Even the recent NYT article that you cite only uses the term "pro-Israel" because it is relevant in that context. WINEP is clearly concerned with more than just Israel/Palestine, and more "pro-American" than it is "pro-Israel". Zekelayla (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the sourcing for supposedly being "pro-American"? The reason to include it is because that is a defining characteristic per several reliable sources. Why do you insist on whitewashing this groups positions? Because removing it is tendentious in a direction you support? nableezy - 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, why do you consider failing to label WINEP as "pro-Israel" to be "whitewashing," yet dispute the idea that the term "pro-Israel" is "contentious" in the current environment? Numerous RS quote WINEP without calling it "pro-Israel". It would be redundant to refer to WINEP as "pro-American" because it is an American think tank, located in Washington, with an obviously pro-American name. Zekelayla (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

An article not saying it not pro-Israel is not the same as an article disputing that it is pro-Israel. I assume because you have not yet presented any such sourcing that it remains an unchallenged fact that WINEP is indeed a pro-Israel think tank. nableezy - 18:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You are basically demanding a violation of MOS:LABEL unless the people who disagree with you can prove a negative. Zekelayla (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a violation of MOS:LABEL, you cannot simply suppress a well-sourced description of a think tank. nableezy - 03:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this conversation has not been productive, and we are talking past each other. There is no consensus over whether this violates MOS:LABEL. Is there some higher authority we can turn to? In any case, I would argue that it is safer to exclude content which is perceived as violating MOS:LABEL. Zekelayla (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It does not violate MOS:LABEL, it is exceedingly well-sourced that it is a pro-Israel think tank. WP:NPOVN if youd like. nableezy - 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion has already been noted. Zekelayla (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A significant proportion of think tanks have a political leaning. @Zekelayla: are you proposing that MOS:LABEL would require all such reported leanings to be removed from all of our articles on think tanks? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that characterizing as a "pro-Israel think tank" imputes that an avowedly American think tank covertly engages in special pleading for a foreign power. "Pro-Israel think tank" is thus a "value-laden label" in this context, hence why nableezy claims it is "whitewashing" to exclude the label. Zekelayla (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

characterizing as a "pro-Israel think tank" imputes that an avowedly American think tank covertly engages in special pleading for a foreign power. Again, this is exceedingly well sourced, with academic works discussing WINEP calling them a pro-Israel think tank. And you have not in any way substantiated your overarching claim here, and even if it were true, we still call David Duke a white supremacist and antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Do you think those well sourced labels cant be included because he objects to them? nableezy - 02:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the sporadic references to WINEP as a "pro-Israel think tank" constitute "exceedingly well sourced". It is a bit bizarre that you do not accept "pro-Israel think tank" as a "value-laden label" in this context, yet accuse those who want to omit the label as "whitewashing". Zekelayla (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zekelayla: please strike your use of the word “covertly” above. That is a fabrication, and is undoubtedly nonsense. There is nothing covert and never has been anything covert about WINEP’s support for Israel.

Without that word the whole thing sounds very normal, which it is. There is nothing surprising about this. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WINEP rejects the label "pro-Israel think tank". If wikipedia insists on using that label, wikipedia is implying that WINEP is being disingenous. Zekelayla (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We are not implying anything, we are faithfully relaying what secondary reliable sources say about WINEP. Are you challenging any of the now ten sources that explicitly support this as an accurate description of WINEP's political positions? nableezy - 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zekelayla: again, WINEP does not reject the label. Please stop repeating that false claim. Satloff's opinion piece stated he believes that the "characterization is woefully insufficient", not that it is wrong. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

he rejects the label in the sense that he finds it overly glib/reductive/etc. Zekelayla (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So what? Reliable secondary sources, which we base our articles on, find it to be accurate and pertinent. nableezy - 23:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous RS that refer to WINEP as an "American think tank" without mentioning Israel, presumably because that is a more neutral and correct characterization. Zekelayla (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

American is because of where it is from. And our article also includes it is American. nableezy - 18:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

AIPAC is an American lobby group. It is obviously pro-Israel, and described as such in its Wikipedia article’s first sentence.

This organization is an offshoot of AIPAC, sharing the same background and goals. It is as American and as pro-Israel as AIPAC.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If the issue was WINEP's orientation in the 1980s, you would have a point. Zekelayla (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You have yet to substantiate your suggestion that the organization has become less pro-Israel over time. I have seen no evidence for it, and believe your claim is false. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

from the article:

WINEP director in the 1980s characterized WINEP as "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way."

WINEP director in 2011: calling WINEP a pro-Israel think tank "projects two false impressions—first, that the institute does not value American interests above special pleading for a foreign power and second, that the institute must be 'anti' others in the region (Palestinians, Arabs)." "this one-dimensional description of the institute's quarter-century of research does a disservice to the many current and former United States government officials and military officers at the institute over the years as well as the numerous institute scholars from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco and other Middle Eastern countries over the years who have undertaken impeccable research on a broad array of topics."

Zekelayla (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Im aware the WINEP director disputes what reliable secondary sources say about WINEP. This article is however based on reliable secondary sources. Im restoring the pro-Israel description citing the above sources. nableezy - 03:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Zekelayla, Nableezy, that 2011 quote doesn’t dispute “pro-Israel” at all. Nowhere does it claim the label is untrue.

It simply says it thinks the description can have negative connotations, which it says don’t apply. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Plus, a single letter in 2011 is evidence only for the organization’s position in 2011. One cannot draw a pattern from one datapoint. We don’t know how the organization felt in 2012.

It is also a primary source, from which we should take great care making judgements. If this was such an important letter, surely we can find a secondary source commenting upon it?

In summary, it is completely inappropriate for us to make editorial decisions here based on this single 2011 letter.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that calling it "pro-Israel" in the first line violates MOS:Label. The history of its founding and positions are still described in the lead. Using the often maligned The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as a source is picking an extreme view of the "Israel lobby". Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Very narrow maligning. The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy#Mearsheimer_and_Walt's_response_to_the_criticism Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Which term explicitly referenced in MOS:LABEL do you exactly think most closely aligns with "pro-Israel"? I just don't see it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Unsourced tendentious nonsense. So is "sometimes described" and that should be reported. When reliable sources say something is a fact then it is a fact on Wikipedia. nableezy - 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources:

• Lockman, Zachary (2005). "Critique from the Right: The Neo-conservative Assault on Middle East Studies". CR: The New Centennial Review. 5 (1). Michigan State University Press: 81–82. ISSN 1539-6630. JSTOR 41949468. By contrast, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ( WINEP), founded in 1985, quickly achieved a much higher profile and much greater influence. Describing itself as "a public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East,"9 WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Its founding director, Martin Indyk, had previously worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), founded in 1959 and by the 1970s by far the most well-funded, visible, and effective pro-Israel lobbying organization. Indyk and his colleagues at WINEP worked hard to strengthen Israels standing in Washington as the key U.S. ally in the Middle East and to ensure that U.S. policy in the region coincided with the policies and strategies of the Israeli government
• "The Israeli Lobby". Journal of Palestine Studies. 35 (3). University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies: 92. 2006-04-01. doi:10.1525/jps.2006.35.3.83. During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
• Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. (2009). "The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: Robert Lieberman and the Israel Lobby". Perspectives on Politics. 7 (2). [American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press]: 262. JSTOR 40406929. Similarly, when Martin Indyk - formerly deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute of Near East Policy - is appointed one of Bill Clinton's key Middle East advisors, it strains credulity to exclude him from the "loose coalition" that "actively works" to promote the "special relationship."
• Rynhold, Jonathan (2010). "Is the Pro-Israel Lobby a Block on Reaching a Comprehensive Peace Settlement in the Middle East?". Israel Studies Forum. 25 (1). Berghahn Books: 31. ISSN 1557-2455. JSTOR 41805052. For example, Martin Indyk who had worked for AIPAC and was the head of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close connections to Israel, played an important role in formulating US policy toward the Middle East in the 1990s

There has yet to be any source bsides WINEP's executive director even coming close to denying that WINEP is "pro-Israel". All of these sources find it to be a defining characteristic of the organization. nableezy - 02:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As this exhaustive sourcing shows, this label complaint is a bit ridiculous. If sourcing are saying things like "WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington", and there are no serious sources directly and specifically countering this characterization, then obviously we go with the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That WINEP is a pro-Israel think tank is by far the most well sourced piece of material in this article. It is a defining characteristic per all of these sources. You may not censor that out, and as widely used as this description is, and as there have been no sources disputing it, WP:DUE demands it be included as a defining trait. nableezy - 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

All we have here is bluster, and the epithet, and the information sourced to Mearsheimer and Walt's magisterial volume which has never met with any serious attempt to counter as flawed its extensive documentation. Sources that dismiss just use bluster, as here. Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have consensus on the inclusion of pro-Israel, and the mass wiping of reliable sources to support that description so that it could be silently removed is not acceptable. nableezy - 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thmymerc you are edit-warring against the consensus of this talk page and will be reverted if you do not self-revert. And if you edit-war against that consensus you will be reported. nableezy - 17:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Background section

Appears to be a complete whitewashing of this organization. Think the sources above need to be used to expand the hagiography that currently exists. nableezy - 15:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of contentious claims sourced exclusively to unreliable sources

I have removed some contentious claims in this article that quoted from a book written by a researcher affiliated with Partners for Progressive Israel (the U.S. branch of the extremely left-wing Israeli party Meretz) and claims sourced exclusively to the heavily-criticized book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. It may be that there are different sources for the claims made, but these do not constitute the kind of reliable, secondary sources necessary. (It's also worth noting that since many of the figures involved are living people, the stringent BLP requirements for citations likely apply.) Thmymerc (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

None of those source are unreliable, The Israel Lobby is written by two noted experts in the field. That book was also heavily praised, so your claim it was heavily criticized as a cover for an effort to whitewash this organization is not going to pass unchallenged. Plus, we already have consensus for much of this up above, so you will need consensus to change it. nableezy - 21:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. Per WP:ONUS, please obtain consensus before adding these contentious sources to the article. Thmymerc (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is long standing content with a consensus above. I will be reporting this tendentious editing if it continues. nableezy - 17:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussion above, I can see that @Nishidani, @חוקרת, @Onceinawhile, @Zekelayla, and @PrisonerB all argued against the phrase while only you and one other editor argued for the inclusion? Thmymerc (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Um thats the opposite of what happened? Onceinawhile and Nishidani both agreed, along with Iskandar323, and the sources were unanimous here. Nice ping attempt for backup though. And this material has been here unchallenged until your whitewashing edits for over a year. nableezy - 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Even more sources calling WINEP pro-Israel have been published since the last discussion, which included a lengthy list. Here's on in NYT and one in ABC. I think there's plenty of evidence that a short wikivoice mention in the lead is due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We dont even need news sources here tbh, the academic sources are super clear on this, WINEP is not only pro-Israel it is part of the core of the Israel lobby and was established for that very purpose. nableezy - 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, except that I think newer sources are helpful to counter the argument that WINEP used to be pro-Israel but is no longer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with adding the label with the New York Times description. I still don't agree with using treating the book or Meretz researcher as a reliable source. Thmymerc (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, my edit did include that it's AIPAC's think tank so pro-Israel isn't really an issue so much as the two sources. Thmymerc (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You dont have to agree, it is work of scholarship by noted scholars in the fields international relations and US policy. You dont get to say I dislike this obviously scholarly source so I will remove it. That is not acceptable. nableezy - 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I restored the prior version, you dont get to make a series of POV driven changes, removing scholarly works, and then revert war to force in your version. That isnt how this works. nableezy - 21:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)