Talk:United Synagogue/Archive 1

"Accusations of pro-Israel bias"

I noticed the aforementioned section. I have added a refutation section to counteract the bias of the aforementioned section. Note that this was July 2014, and probably BDS, which is hardly neutral. Perhaps the whole section should be deleted. ...Done so on seeing page history. --Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Edit-warring about this will not be tolerated. I've protected the page for now. When protection ceases, further edit-warring will lead to blocks. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dweller,

Please see the history of this page and the edits and content censorship that has taken place. At no point have I attempted to engage in 'warring' or 'content removal', unlike Mike Schwartz613 .

Additionally , I am neutral to this 'debate' and as such have been careful to add only verifiable sources and publicly reported accusations that have been made against the organization in question - user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bellezzasolo , as you can see from his page, is most certainly NOT dispassionate about this page as he is a publicly stated Zionist, whereas I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli or affiliated in any way. Might I suggest that user Mike Schwartz613 be blocked, as he is quite simply deleting content without engaging with the accusations, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I am happy to see a section refusing these accusations, but removing content is NOT acceptable to enlightened debate nor part of the stated goals of Wikipedia.

I simply have highlighted reported news items and inconsistencies that are present in the content supplied by the United Synagogues.

I therefore please request that you return the page to an editable status, as you can see that I continue to add new content, with fully attributable sources, unlike Mike Schwartz613 who continues to make claims about my motives that are unsubstantiated, nor does he add any further information, sources or value to the debate and issues surrounding the united Synagogues. This is the entire purposes of Wikipedia.

Kind regards

I.W

_________

A review of Internetwikier's user page indicates previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, most recently on December 2, 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Internetwikier. A review of Internetwikier's contributions page reflects edits exclusively of Jewish religious organizations. It is possible that this user account was set up as a project of a BDS oriented person or group with the sole purpose of maligning Jewish groups. Administrators reviewing the history of this page will certainly note the previous violations referenced on user's contribution page.

________

Dear Dweller,

As highlighted above, Mike Schwartz613 has continued to reply on ad hominem attacks (I am not affiliated with the BDS, nor am I anti-Jewish) in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue: there exists published, substantiated, legitimate criticism that has been leveled at theUS.org.uk and the United Synagogues and this needs to be reflected in the page assigned to it. It makes no difference if the organization is religious, or secular, and the page should reflect this.

This is a clear case of people wanted to hide criticism that is already publicly available on the web from new sources - why would Wikipedia hide this? Mike Schwartz613 needs to ADD content, not delete what he wishes didn't exist in the public domain. admin: please address this.

________

Internetwikier would add much to the discussion on this forum if he would disclose what were cited as previous violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on his user page. It would benefit this discussion and possibly reveal his proported claim to neurality "to this 'debate'" as being a spurious assertion. I am under the impression that the contributor's previous violations will be reviewed by administrators looking into Dweller's page protection recommendation and might impact on contributor's rights to edit other Wiki pages.

________

Dear Dweller,

As Mike Schwartz613 well knows, the previous 'violations' were also as a result of Mike Schwartz613 and his constant deletion of content that was added, not only by myself, to pages relating to the United Synagogues. Except on this occasion I was too busy to contest the constant removal of content. However, this has now been raised to such a level of abuse of Wikipedia that I am not prepared to let this matter rest. I trust that you will be able to see, from the history of the pages, that ZERO content has ever been added by Mike Schwartz613 and as such his account should be restricted on this page, unless he agrees to add content to the page, refuting if he wishes WITH SOURCES, the accusations that have been made against the United Synagogues.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Technical 13,

Please revert the action taken by :

(cur | prev) 09:32, 17 April 2015‎ Mike Schwartz613 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,175 bytes) (-6,844)‎ . . (Undid revision 656862906 by Internetwikier (talk) Reverse vandalism) (thank)

and restore the page to the fuller version.

Those who wish to contest the accusations, are free to do so. that is the purpose of a Wiki! Mike Schwartz613 however continues to just 'delete' content with no valid reason - all my sources are cited and referenced.

Internet Wikier

Protected edit (removal) request on 18 April 2015

Dear Admins,

As can be seen on the talk page of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Synagogue a particular user, Mike Schwartz 613, is continuing to just simply 'delete' content that I have submitted(that is publicly available and cited by reputable news organizations) for no other reason than he does not like the fact that this information relates to the article in question.

I am very keen on a 'refutations' section being added, but to delete information is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Many thanks, I.W. Internetwikier (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

It's VERY clear what changes need to be made, SEE THE CHANGE LOG to revert all edits done my MikeSchwartz which are simple content removal edits, or attempts at censorship, nothing more or less.

The format of criticism and refutations of said criticism is COMMON to ALL wiki pages - why the 'this is unfathomable, must be complex' dithering on your 'admins' part when it comes to resolving this? it's simple: I add content, Mike deletes it. I reference content, Mike deletes it. I provide first sources, Mike deletes them.

Please address this, asap. regards I.W _____

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Hello Wikipedia Admins,

Please proceed to unlock this page for editing as there is no reason for editing to be blocked - MikeSchwartz613 is the only vandal on this page, and needs to be warned or blocked.

Other British Jewish organizations with pages on Wikipedia, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies , also have, quite legitimately a criticism and controversies page, and it is in exactly this same vain that the United Synagogues should also contain a section with relevant information pertaining to the organization as a whole.

Others need to be able to edit this page again., and the block is unjustified.

Kind regards Internetwikier (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done I'm the protecting admin. This needs to be sorted out properly. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Dwelller,

Please specify how you would like this to be 'sorted out properly', short of unprotecting the page and allowing those with information related to the organization to CONTRIBUTE something, rather than deleting material. If this needs to be escalated, or is above your admin level, then please do so. The current 'protect' status is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is a WP:NOCENSOR case, clear as daylight.

I.W

___ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re recent edit war

If you check the history of this article, you can see the following:

1. A large amount of information about a controversy was added
2. Balancing material refuting the controversy was added
3. Editors have been disagreeing about whether the whole section or none of it should be included

The page is currently protected to prevent further edit-warring. I have no opinion on the matter, but as an administrator, won't tolerate an edit-war. I encourage both sides to argue their case here for the material to be included or rejected.

Please make your arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Please be brief if you want to sway opinions (no-one likes to read walls of text).

Please keep the discussion civil and avoid attacking other editors

Thank you --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the additional material be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per Dweller in the parent section above, a consensus needs to be reached as to whether both sides of this controversy should be added to the article or not. I'll remind contributors to this discussion to keep the discussion civil and avoid attacking other editors, focus on the content instead of what the other editors are doing or have done. Also, please be brief in making your arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and !voting

• Included My personal thought on it is that since the information to be added is balanced and would be an overall improvement to the encyclopedia, it should be added — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Reject My objections to the changes recommended by another editor stem from several points.

1) The primary focus and mission of United Synagogue (US) is for the religious enhancement and knowledge of the Jewish community in the Commonwealth and to serve as a liaison between the various other faith communities both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. Political advocacy for Israel, to the extent that it even exists, is secondary to those other purposes.

2) Even a dispassionate observer to this page would question any edits sourced by organisations such as True Justice for Palestine, Stop the JNF (Jewish National Fund), Middle East Monitor, Soutien Palestine etc; groups which clearly have an agenda in the broader issue of the Arab Israeli conflict.

3) The stated purpose for protection status of this page are limited only to edits "that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus" (note, I have no objection to ANY edits which are supported by the consensus of editors to this page by I question if the material suggested meets that test).

4) The editor proposing the requested changes has a Wiki profile reflecting edits exclusively to this page and the activity actually began in July 2014 around the same time that several BDS activists launched similar attacks on other Jewish, Israeli and Holocaust related Wiki pages a a result of the Gaza war last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Include

Dear Dweller,

I appreciate your time, please see my response below:

1. A large amount of information about a controversy was added

Yes, this is true. The page, as it stood before my input, was a sanitized and inaccurate description of the organisations behavior, political stance and involvement on issues that are OUTSIDE of it's official remit. As such, this should be documented and reflected for all to see. this is EXACTLY the same as the layout for other pages that deal with other organisations that have similar criticism leveled against them, as I have already shown in my posts above.

1. Balancing material refuting the controversy was added:

This is correct, it was added by another user who offered their opinions, WITHOUT providing references or source material to corroborate their assertions. This is nothing to do with my input, and should be marked accordingly (removed, IMHO). I fail to see how this impacts upon my efforts to add extra information, which is fully referenced.

1. Editors have been disagreeing about whether the whole section or none of it should be included:

Incorrect. Editors have not been 'disagreeing' about what should be included or excluded. The reality is that one editor (Mike Schwartz) has been deleting content, while I (InternetWikier) have been adding sourced, referenced, independently verifiable information to the page, that is already in the public domain. This is clearly the purpose of Wikipedia, so I fail to see why you would lock the page, without chastising MikeSchwartz613 who is the source of the deletion-vandalism.

Please, address this fundamental issue of censorship that is taking place.

Internetwikier (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last sentence means. The purpose of this discussion is to decide whether to include or reject some text from a Wikipedia article. There's no "censorship" at play here. Wikipedia is not censored. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller, I don't mind eventually looking through the history, but is there any kind of summary (or even simply a map, if you will) of what the pieces in controversy are? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:. Sure. Take a look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Will think on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with inserted section. The main WP policy problem is that, unless I'm missing something, these accusations themselves have not been covered by reliable sources, such as BBC and other media. (A letter to the editor would hardly suffice.) As a result, the section compile a range of info that is not linked to United Synagogue by reliable sources, so this appears to be Original Research (and not allowed in a WP article). The section heading itself is problematic and shows a POV. Given all this, the section is completely out of proportion to the article (Undue Emphasis). My recommendation is that no such material be added until the controversy is covered by reliable sources. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with previous editor. Additionally, even if the controversy is covered by reliable sources, any coverage of this topic should not be out of proportion to its importance within the whole topic of the article. In my view, the deleted material spent much more time talking about (and critiquing) the pro-Israel material that the US was said to promote than was spent on the fact that the US promotes it. But the subject of this article is the US, not the material.

I fully appreciate that this encyclopedia is WP:NOT PAPER. So we have more room to do whatever we want here. At the same time, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So I think to myself, "Would Britannica go on at this length on this topic in this article?" And I come to a clear "no" on this. I can't really imagine any paper encyclopedia giving more on this than something to the effect of:

Like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue supports Israel to a great extent, and provides access to pro-Israel points of view to its members. Equally like many Jewish organizations, United Synagogue comes under sometimes substantial criticism for doing so by parties with other perspectives, who would see the United Synagogue's religious function as being inconsistent with political support for Israel. See Israel-Palestinian Dispute (role of Jewish organizations) (or whatever the appropriate article would be).

and having one–only one–article covering that topic.

If there is something unique and specific to the United Synagogue's pro-Israel advocacy, then it belongs here if supported with reliable sources. If not, this is not the location for broad coverage of pro-Israel advocacy. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Included: In response to StevenJ81's concerns that the material added to this article is 'original research' and as such disallowed on WP by policy, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews#Criticisms_and_controversies

for examples of similar British Jewish organisations who have been publicly criticised for having a political, partisan, non-religious (and unnecessary, non-theological) interest and attachment to Israeli foreign & military policy, defending Israel at every stage and utilising THE SAME source material for their public educational campaigns as the united synagogue. This is a simple identical application of the policy of attaching the same criticism to The United Synagogues as to The Board of Deputies.

Please understand, no one is deputing that The United Synagogue (and likewise, the Board of Deputies of British Jews) play a vital role in the lives of many British Jews in the UK and abroad. However, what is less well know , BUT reported and referenced in the sources that I and others have provided, is that the United Synagogue is NOT agnostic when it comes to Israel, and has a very clear political message that it wishes to communicate about the role that Israel SHOULD play in the lives of British Jews: simply put, that it is central to British Jews lives and as such must be 'defended', ether overtly, or 'covertly' by reproducing education documents that themselves would fail ANY of Wikipedia's tests for original sourcing, references and historical veracity.

Criticisms of British Jewish organisations are such a WELL KNOWN and DOCUMENTED phenomenon that several phenomena British Jews have (to quote wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Jewish_Voices ) formed a 'break-away' Jewish organisation that

"On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organisation called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticising particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews.[11]

This is a documented fact. Why not allow the page to reflect this?

I would be interested to hear what those who constantly 'delete' my new content have to say on the issue of any criticisms, which of both the United Synagogue and The Board of Deputies of British Jews as both organisations have been criticised by public broadcast media, such as http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/9/independent_jewish_voices_new_british_group

Internetwikier (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81:

Include material, add referenced counter-criticisms

With all due respect StevenJ81, your comment "Additionally, even if the controversy is covered by reliable sources, any coverage of this topic should not be out of proportion to its importance within the whole topic of the article" makes little sense unless you understand the importance of the message that this gives to those who would follow this organisation and its teachings: that Israel is central to A British Jews life, and that it is exclusively a Jewish project/country and the property of Jews, and Jews alone. Which it is not.

Again, with all due respect intended, please see my immediately subsequent point where I show you that, present on Wikipedia, is reporting that this issue of 'Israel' being of such fundamental importance to the United Synagogue is SO CONTENTIOUS that prominant British Jews have actually 'got of their 'asses' and bothered to form and entirely new, break-away organsiation that expressly REJECTS the premise that Isreal is for Jews and Jews alone! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Jewish_Voices ).

I , and the rest of Wikipedia, would find it rather perplexing that you (who admits) to having little knowledge of the issue at hand, decide that because someone has bothered to flesh out, in copious detail, the criticisms pertaining to this organisation , that it counts as original research and 'unbalanced' due to its shear details (people should learn recognise detailed methodical research if you ask me), and hence is not allowed to be included on the very page that is designed to inform readers about the organisation.

Wikipedia is not the place to employ admins who are experts in every field: it is the place to allow those with competing viewpoints, as long as they are adequately referenced, to present their competing ideas. That is consensus. Contrary to Mike Schwartz asserting that my views are 'racist, anti-Semitic etc' I put it to you that I have broken no US law (as my views are neither racist, anti-Semitic not, untrue). To deny space to (referenced) criticism of an organisation is akin to not allowing a wiki page on the Nazi's to present critical negative 'unbalanced' ideas in their full just because no one has bothered to 'balance' this with in depth research on the Nazi's logistically impressive train timetabling & rail networks! Absolute nonsense, I'm sure you'll agree!

Internetwikier (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier:

1. The information in the article about the Board of Deputies was sourced better than the information in the deleted section here. There were a number of articles in mainstream press there. Not so here.
   • Personally, I wish you had been more careful in your editing over there. Much of it is sloppy, and there are format errors there. Additionally, it would be good if the references had been written more tightly, using citation templates (like {{web cite}}), for example. Writing a good encyclopedia article is not just about being fast, and I question whether you care as much about the quality of what you have written as about its content. Also ...
2. I personally think there is too much in that article, relative to the rest of the size of the article. The whole section should be no more than about two paragraphs long. That said,
   • You have properly (if sloppily) sourced the information there, so I'm not prepared to exclude it, either.
3. You ascribed some comments above to me, and while I agreed with them, they were written by @ProfGray. Again, this was rushed and careless. And lest you think that I am saying this to make for a personal attack, let me point out that
4. You claimed that I admitted to having little knowledge of the issue at hand. I actually made no such claim one way or the other, and you are not entitled to say I have made such a claim either way. Finally,
5. What you have written above displays such a clear POV ("gotten of [sic] their asses") that I really have to question whether you should edit this page at all.

But rather than asking administrators for a topic ban because of that, let me challenge you to do the following: get better sources for this article, and boil down the critique sections to about 2-3, well-sourced, paragraphs in each article. Then, whether I agree with you or not—and for the record, I don't—I'll defend your right to say what you want here. But until you can do that, the content does not belong here. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81

1) I take on board your criticism about formatting and citation syntax - I've I knew how , I would use it. Someone, more familar and adroit at using it, can I'm sure correct it. this is not ideal I know, but this is the way it is for now. I will try and change. However, as you point out, my content is properly sourced.

2) you may believe there is 'too much' in the article, but then this implies that you believe in 'relative' balance based purely on size, not on importance. If there is 'too little' elsewhere, why not add something yourself to readdress this imbalance. Or better still, encourage others such as MikeSchwartz613 to add content, as all he has done until now is delete content for no referenced reason.

I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.

3) I may have mis-attributed opinions to you rather than another contributor, I apologies. An honest mistake that should not detract from the points, that are referenced, that I raise.

4) I do have a POV, we all do. My use of the the colloquial 'asses' comment is nothing more than my attempt to highlighting that this issue isn't one that exist purely in my mind, but also in the mind of prominent British Jews: an issue to them that is so real, that they have gone to the effort, expense and time to break-away from established organisations and create their own. As this page currently stands, there are no criticism of theUS.org.uk organisation visible. So tell me, if that is the case, why did this break-away organisation bother to get established in the first place? This is the place to document the 'whys' , as they are sourced articles.

My POV is simply that the criticism be documented on Wikipedia, as well as refutations. Users are free to refute them, using sourced material. They may or may not be my 'personal opinion', but as long as they are referenced they should stand.

It is an obvious point, but I can not, nor should I be compelled to (as their is no moral, ethical nor wiki policy code) add 'more positive' content that I know nothing about. I know about the criticisms of this organisation, and reference their sources, which is what my contribution to the page will be. Sloppy as my citations are, they are all accurate and up to date.

5) I gladly accept your challenge, although I must ask: 'better sources'? You have, indirectly, said that you do not agree that the sources are 'good enough', yet they are of reputable quality including printed publications:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/halltext/90721h0002.htm</ref>

Ben White, Palestinians in Israel, p12-13. (London: Pluto Press, 2012 http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/nakba-and-israels-60th-anniversary</ref> www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/14685-middle-east-peace-the-principles-behind-the-process

This seems to be setting the bar for source reputation beyond that of Pluto Press and the British Parliament publications house - a rather impossible task. And all of this to defend an organisation's wiki page that doesn't even deign to produce material with sources and references in it? This sounds peculiar. Bias, perhaps?

Finally, how can one 'edit' the page, if it's locked? Why not, as I suggested earlier, as those that disagree with the content, to refute the content based on merit. If my content is soo POV biased and un-useful, they should have no time in debunking the criticism that others have made against them. Why not make that the challange, get old Mike to do a bit of work, other than pressing the 'delete' key.

appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pluto Press is fine. Oddly enough, Parliament may not be, especially since you're quoting a Hansard extract. (For Yanks, that's the equivalent of the Congressional Record.) Just because an MP says something on the floor of the House of Commons, and then has that quote published verbatim in the Hansard, doesn't make that quote a reliable source. Most of the other sources in your deleted section did not seem reliable, at least on quick review. But I'm willing (probably not this week, by the way) to take a shot in my sandbox using whatever sources you have that actually are reliable. (@Dweller: Do you mind putting a copy of Internetwikier's deleted version at User:StevenJ81/sandbox/United Synagogue? Please note the small s in sandbox.)

More to the point, let me quote verbatim something you just wrote:

I fundamentally disagree that 'too much content' in any way detracts from the detailed nature of the analysis, reporting and refutation of the content made available and passed off as 'fact' by the organisation in question. Each point I have raised merits analysis, regardless of how 'large' this section becomes. This is not 'original work' but the noting of criticisms raised elsewhere. with sources. this IS the essence of wikipedia.

Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a place for analysis, reporting and refutation of anything. The essence of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. That's it. It's not a newspaper, nor an editorial page. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to provide an encyclopedic overview of this topic, The United Synagogue. In that context, a certain amount of discussion about criticism is always appropriate, if the criticism is material and notable. And while I suspect that groups like Independent Jewish Voices represent a minority opinion, it would be going too far to say the criticism is immaterial or not notable.

Still, while size is not the only factor that goes into "balance", it's not an immaterial factor, either. And this is especially true given that Israel advocacy does not appear in the article at all right now.

At this point, my view is that you are more interested in editorializing than in writing an encyclopedia article. (Believe me, this is a common problem all over Wikipedia whenever political questions are on the table.) But as my own show of good faith, I'm going to try to write what I think is an encyclopedic version of the information you want to include. Why don't you leave this article alone in the meanwhile? and I'll ping you in a week or ten days when I have a chance to work on it. (And if you haven't heard from me by a week from today, ping me and remind me.) StevenJ81 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81,

Your kind offer is appreciated. When the sandbox is up, I'll reformat my efforts also.

many thanks Internetwikier (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reject: The content added by @Internetwikier: is completely unsuitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia. She offers no source for this criticism, but writes, "Correspondence has been entered into with the US.org.uk by a member of the British public." She cites numerous other sources - a speech by a UK member of Parliament and an article in the Times, for example - none of which mention United Synagogue.

If there really is a controversy about the United Synagogue and its positions on political issues, Interwikier needs to find reliable third party sources reporting the controversy - a news report in the Times, for example, reporting the controversy. or a television report. Without that, there is no controversy, there is nothing to add to this article, and Interwikier's edits, far from being a topic for an RFC, are merely a form of vandalism. If Interwikier continues to insist on these edits, the place to continue the discussion is not here, but at ARBCOM. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Same address

@Internetwikier:: I think I don't understand your recent edit that "As public records show this is the same registered office as the Office of the Chief Rabbi." I think what you are trying to to say is that the Chief Rabbi's address, according to his website, is in the offices of the United Synagogue. It seems you are trying to suggest that there is an organizational link between United Synagogue and the Chief Rabbi. But isn't this already stated explicitly in the preceding section, which says, "In religious and ritual matters it is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbi"? So what is the point of this addition?

Also, you write, "Both Ephraim Mirvis, the current chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks are known to be 'strong Zionists and supporters of the State of Israel.'[10] The educational material that the united Synagogues promotes on its website reflects this stance". Your edit suggests that the United Synagogue stance on Israel has been influenced - perhaps changed - by Mirvis and Sacks. Are you sure this is the case? Was United Synagogue not pro-Zionist prior to these two rabbis? I think you need a source if you want to suggest that the US support of Israel is the result of influence of Mirvis and Sacks. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier:: Would you please just leave the article alone for a little while until I do what we agreed to? I offered to try to incorporate information that you think is very important here. I assumed that meant you'd leave this alone until I did so. Please show a little good faith in the other direction. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: When do you think you will have your changes ready? Because if it will take another few days, I will revert the changes made by Internetwikier. They are unsubstantiated innuendos, and constitute vandalism. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa The point of the addition is that it reflects more than a procedural link between the two organisation, in that they share the same office space - the cross-pollination of ideas in such a situation is likely to be very strong. This is both a factual addition, and so not in any way controversial. The fact that you highlight this as an issue, when it is clearly stated in the public record (and not on Wikipedia) implies that you are overly sensitive to ANY additional information being added to this page. Your impartiality in this case is clearly in doubt. The point of the addition is simple: it enables the reader to better understand the relationship between the two organisations (including BICOM) and there is NO reason why this should be hidden from the public on Wikipedia.

I also 'infer' the the US has changed its stance on Zionism due to the addition of Sacks and Mirvis - and this is exactly what the sourced references show. It was indeed less pro Zionist before Sacks/Mirvis - if you wish to get pedantic the US.org.uk actually PRE-DATES the 'creation' of the idea of Zionism, so yes, Zionism has clearly altered the thinking at the top of the organisation over many years. This can be seen in evidence (to follow) when Israel is engaged in military operations the US.org.uk has been shown, and I will show with further sources over time, that it is uncritically supportive of Israel's military strategy and overall goals vis-a-vis the Palestinians, in the face of international public outrage and overwhelming criticism from both nation states and human rights organisations. This is a fact, and something that should be noted under criticisms. Why would you wish to hide this?

I'm sorry to have to ask this Ravpapa, but is it just me that finds it abhorrent that a religious organisation is meddling, taking a partisan, non dispassionate viewpoint on the promotion of the 'idea of a state' (which is what Zionism is) through military and political means at the expense of the human rights and dignity of many millions of people, be they Palestinians, refugees, Israel's non-Jewish citizens?

This is not what religious organisations are 'expected' or 'morally allowed' to do - it is NOT part of their remit.

Your continued pandering to the 'sensitivity' (including your own) of certain wikiEditiors is very apparent. This needs to be addressed.

@StevenJ81 Apologies, but I thought that I had added nothing controversial in the slightest: high quality reliable sources reporting on established facts (the address of an office, a publicly stated viewpoint). The sensitivity of some admins/editors here is clearly more important an issue than 'why' I have included an address. Do you not think? Internetwikier (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's all of a piece, Internetwikier. But I'm out of patience (see below). StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, @Internetwikier:, but I still fail to see the significance of this address business. The spiritual leader of the US is the Chief Rabbi. At least that is what the article says. Why is it odd, then, that his office is in the same place as the US? Doesn't the spiritual leader of a synagogue usually have his office in the synagogue? If he had his office somewhere else, now that would be odd!

Further, in answer to your question, no, I do not find it at all unusual that a religious organization is taking a position in a matter of politics. I do not see the US's support for Israel any more abhorrent than, for example, the Dalai Lama's support for an independent Tibet, or of the Pope taking a position opposing abortion. I suppose I find it abhorrent in some sense (well, not the case of the Dalai Lama) because I find almost all religion abhorrent. But certainly not in any way unusual. However, if you have such a strong opinion in the matter, perhaps you should not be editing the article.

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I understand that you 'fail to see the significance' of this business address - however this is not a requirement for the factual information to be added to the website. You are a site admin, not a knowledgeable source on Judaism, or religion generally, afaik. The original US.org.uk references the chief rabbi, but does not provide an address for itself under the contact me section. This is either an accidental or deliberate omission, but either way is a factual piece of information. Showing the geographical proximity of the two is not controversial, especially as 'The Office of the Chief Rabbi' and 'the US.org.uk' present themselves, however misleadingly, as two distinct entities. Your input on what would be 'odd' is superfluous and unsubstantiated.

Further, your personal stance on 'religious organizations' taking a position on state-based politics is also rather ill-informed and, at best ignorant, or at worst disingenuous. The (poor) comparison of the Dalai Lama (the head of an organization) choosing to draw attention to issues of violations of INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON Human Rights and the documented genocide/politicide of his 'people' with the United States (a nation state) support for Israel (another nation state) is just plane ignorant. One raises the issue at UN events, the other supplies $3 billion in loans and advanced military hardware to the Israels. Apples to oranges, as you should well know.

Finally, your assertion that 'religion is abhorrent' shows that you are very poor schooled in the liberal arts. Religion has directly killed very few people over the years. Kings and heads of states, using religion in their name (or expressly looking to purge those religious individuals from their populace) have killed many many millions of people; think Communism, Holy Roman Empire, National Socialism, I could go on. I'm no religious zealot myself, but the emotional and physical solace that it offers are by no means abhorrent. I think it's best you keep your personal , and offensive, opinions to yourself. They literally have added nothing to the debate and whilst you may think that this position of being 'above religion' somehow makes you dispassionate on the page content, or qualifies you more than others to have an 'enlightened' opinion of the edits being proposed, let me assure you it does no such thing.

Deal with the edits proposed on what information they communicate to the wiki reader, not what YOU consider significant. I have recognized that there are criticisms of this organization and counter-criticisms: all I ask is that they are documented. Internetwikier (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa, I have no idea when I'll get to this. Feel free to do what you see fit. Frankly, I'd like to see all of this gone from here, but was trying to find a reasonable compromise position.

@Internetwikier, it's all very nice of you to feel that a "religious organization" has no brief in politics, but you're naive, and frankly, wrong. Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and for Jewish organizations to support it is entirely natural and appropriate. And before you continue criticizing what you see as Israel's inappropriate human rights violations toward its own Arab citizens and toward Palestinians, why don't you work on how Palestinian leaders treat their own people? And why don't you address issues like Arab riots against Jews throughout the mid-twentieth century? Or about the consistent statement of Palestinian leaders that in the Palestinian state of a two-state solution, Jews will not be welcome—even as Israel is expected to welcome Arab citizens? And, on the other hand, why not talk about the fact that United Synagogue supports an Israel where Arab citizens still have more political rights than Arab citizens of any other country in the region, whether that's done perfectly or not? And why not talk about that United Synagogue also supports the Israel that is the first country to send emergency crews to global disaster spots like Haiti and Nepal?

I personally think you are on a mission, and that you have no interest in balance. So, frankly, I think you should be off this page.

StevenJ81 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: The truth will out, as they say eh? Where to begin with your unprofessional rant eh?

Let me remind you, first and foremost, that you're a 'Wiki Admin', not an expert on the issues at hand - so don' pretend to be. Reading Wikipedia exclusively does not an expert make. That you'd like to see, and I quote 'all of this gone from here' means that you're in no position to sit in judgement on this - get another admin involved, immediately, before I do. It is readily apparent to all of Wikipedia, and I hope other wikiAdmins, that YOUR inherent bias has now become self evident: you have failed to provide precisely one quote or reference for all of your unsubstantiated assertions regarding Israel, Palestine and the motives of the actors involved. Are you now going to mark your content for automatic deletion, as per wiki-rules? I thought not.

To address your concerns: It is not my job, nor responsibility, to provide a 'complete and exhaustive' analysis of the united synagogue - that is for others to complete the rest of the page pertaining to this organization as they see fit. If they provide quotes, then I'm all for it. I've never said otherwise. I add content, referenced, for that which I know to have been said by others. That is not in dispute. Likewise, if you provided some references, and the content was in any way related to the united synagogue, then it should stand.

Yet your ramble about 'Israel being the state of the Jewish people' is by no means an uncontested 'fact' as you have framed it (check out the Wikipedia page on that issues if you disagree and add your material there. I guarantee you it won't stand without a reference), so it has no place in this discussion. I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you. How can that be that I don't see Israel as 'my state', or 'a state for all Jews', or even, as the Zionists would have you believe, as a 'justifiable entity' IF it comes at the expense of the human rights and dignity of 4.5 million Palestinians. You do not speak for me, or many others, so don't pretend to. Add your references, fine, otherwise it's just 'opinion'. And, again, that is not what wikipedia is about.

And as for the rest of your context-free tidbits about 'Arab riots against Jews throughout the mid-twentieth century', then I think you'll need to be more specific before anyone can even engage with such a comment: might you mean the 1936 Arab uprising against British Mandate rule? Thought you might: try and be more specific if you can, it is the purpose of Wikipedia after all.

You want to talk about the two-state solution? Fantastic! Might I suggest that you get on the wiki page for that issues and give it a go. I'll be ready to read the constructive, referenced, material that you have to offer. I shan't hold my breath.

As for this 'gem', "And why not talk about that United Synagogue also supports the Israel that is the first country to send emergency crews to global disaster spots like Haiti and Nepal?" where to begin!? Enough already. Like seriously, did you really write that? And you're an admin?

Let me spell it out to you so that you understand your job as wikiAdmin. You're here to make sure that:

1) Original content added to page is referenced by reliable sources, and not subject to copyright. 2) Space is made for counter-criticism to be aired, if it exists. 3) It doesn't break any national laws.

Period.

In this context, for theUs.org.uk it means that

1) the reader of this page should be made aware of political stance that theUS.org.uk has regarding Israel (as the organization itself makes frequent and central reference to the State of Israel, this is not only justified but essential if the page is to have any credibility) 2) criticisms of this organization's stance regarding Israel should be listed, subject to references, as they are inherently controversial (this 'talk page' itself is proof of that) 3) counter-criticism should be allowed, IF and ONLY IF referenced.

You're assertion that 'balance' should exist is a oft' trotted-out and misunderstood one: the Nazi's do not #require# a page on Wikipedia to balance their morally reprehensible behavior before and during WW2. You're free to add 'balancing content' (if there exists any!) if you wish, but that does not mean that it 'must be present' for the entirely justifiable criticism of the Third-Reich to be copious, detailed and continuously refined as more come to light. This is the same situation we have here, in principle at least.

This is a very simple matter, that YOU are making an issue out of - criticisms of this organization do exist, made by respected organizations and individuals, so allow them to be documented. It is not your role to block content addition that is referenced. You can re-order it, request it be 'cleaned-up, but not block it out of some readily apparent ideological and political bias that you appear to have.

If you chose to hide these referenced criticisms then you're on your own 'mission'. And that is a problem for a wikiAdmin, don't you feel?

Internetwikier (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather curious, @Internetwikier wrote on April 17 under the Page Protection heading "I am neither Arab, Jewish, Israeli" yet on April 26 under the Same Address heading, he concedes "I am a Jew, yet I disagree with you". It would appear that @Internetwikier is dealing with bigger issues in his life than this discussion allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Schwartz613 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz613: Good to see you engaging intellectually with the points being made Mike, the sure sign of a mammoth intellect and not a hasbara-robot-machine. How about you provide some references, eh? Secular Jewish is a perfectly acceptable place to be in 2015, I'll be fine. thanks for your concern. Internetwikier (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier, your lecture to me would be very interesting and to point, except for just a couple of things.

1. I am not an administrator here. (Full disclosure: I am a rollbacker and a pending change reviewer.) You might have a point about things I should or should not do here if I were an administrator (and taking that role here). But I'm not.
2. I probably should not edit pages on the Arab-Israeli conflict (which this page has now become). And if you look at my record, I almost never do (beyond fixing typos and the like), for I know my biases. I don't have any content to "automatic-delete" here, for I have not edited the article page at all.
3. Sometimes—not often, because I get too frustrated—I participate in discussions on talk pages about Arab-Israeli conflict discussions. And when I do, I almost always take the position I tried to take here. I try to take a neutral, non-partisan stance, and try to help people incorporate criticism of Israel in a neutral, balanced way. Whether I like it or not, there is criticism out there, it is notable, and it is reported in reliable sources. So for someone like me—committed to Israel, but also committed to a fair and balanced encyclopedia—it is unthinkable (yes, unthinkable) to leave it out entirely. So I try to incorporate it in a way that people feel accurately and appropriately states the facts—and in a way that I can live with as balanced. Usually, I will draft something, people will discuss it, change it, etc., and then it will go live. And people, including Israel's critics, are usually satisfied enough with my work, especially if the alternative becomes edit wars, topic bans, and such. People don't usually agree to let me have my hand at something, and then go make changes anyway.

   Here, for example, I can live with a critique of the United Synagogue for supporting Israel. I have a harder time living with that becoming half of the article, when Israel advocacy is only part of United Synagogue's brief, and when US does so much overall for British Jewry. And I have a hard time with the fact that you agreed to let me have a go at it, and then continued editing anyway. Until you did that, I was really and truly ready to draft a piece that I personally didn't like very well, to give you plenty of opportunity to comment, and then include it.

4. What may or may not have a place in the discussion here on the talk page is inherently different from what may or may not be encyclopedic enough to put in on article pages. You may or may not agree that "Israel is the state of the Jewish people." It is certainly true that most of Israel thinks that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and it is certainly true that if you ever got forced from your home, wherever it is, because you are a Jew, Israel would take you in, because you are a Jew. As for the rest of what I wrote to you, before you start preaching to me about whether Israel is a "legitimate entity" at all because of human rights violations, I strongly suggest you look around Israel's neighborhood and see how everyone else does things. I suggest you compare Israel's record; I guarantee that Israel's record will look exemplary in comparison. And if you're going to tell me that Israel's violations are reported more than anyone else's, I'll tell you it's because people's expectations of Israel are higher—and their expectations of everyone else in the region are pretty low. Do your own research on it, if you really have an interest in this subject.

I don't think you will, because you already know what's right. And you're more interested in journalism than in writing an encyclopedia. So you will have your way here. I'm gone. I don't have any more time for this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Don't ever trot out the Nazi comparison again. That's just vile.

@Mike Schwartz613 (and others): I strongly suggest you add some balancing content to what Internetwikier is writing. Whether any of us like it or not, some criticism of United Synagogue's Israel advocacy will legitimately end up in the article, and Interwikier has made it clear that it will be up to others to write the balancing text. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the plan proposed (for want of a better word) by StevenJ81 above and interpret likely POV pushing and certainly battleground tactics by both sides.

Re comment by Ravpapa "I do not see the US's support for Israel any more abhorrent than, for example, the Dalai Lama's support for an independent Tibet, or of the Pope taking a position opposing abortion." Please consider that there are different levels of support. For instance there can be support for the existence of a Jewish state in accordance with the prescription presented in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and there can be support for an Israel that permits and supports settlers and army infrastructures taking possession of large sections even of West Bank territories. A relevant content on the form and extent of the Zionism expressed by the United Synagogue should rightly be included in the article and, especially to extents that this goes beyond Free Tibet type arguments, this should be reported.

A search on site:www.theus.org.uk/ regarding zion, zionist or zionism developed a large content in regard to a controversial issue which deserves report.

Internetwikier, please do not do things such as trying to spell out people's jobs. We are a group of editors who, for the most part, are trying to work towards the development of informative, relevant and neutral content.

GregKaye 06:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

[[User:GregKaye|Greg] I appreciate your balanced and fair minded look at this issue - you have clearly taken the time, that others have not, to engage with the topic and understand that an opinion on the politics of another nation state by the US.org.uk is something that should included on the organizations Wiki page. I would appreciate your guidance further on proceeding with adding further, sourced, material which for reason unbeknownst to me, is continually deleted and misrepresented. I would also ask that you assist me with understanding why it is that others refuse to add their own additional balancing material, sourced of course, to the website to allow the wiki page to grow and better serve the wiki community (I must confess I am continually flummoxed by the logic that unless I 'balance' my content additions to the page then the additions are expressing a POV - no one is asking me to add nice commentary to wiki entries on Nazi Germany - so why is this any different in theory?) Internetwikier (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye:: The question here is not whether United Synagogue's position on Israel is controversial - it unquestionably is - but whether anyone has taken the US (short here for United Synagogue - not for United States as Internetwikier assumed) to task for its position. The answer to that question is yes - there is a group of British Jews who find the US's unqualified support for Israel objectionable. That is Independent Jewish Voices. (I do not consider a throwaway comment by Iranian state radio to be serious criticism.)

This article is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of a pro- or anti-Israeli position, the West Bank settlements, a Palestinian state, and so on. This is the place to discuss United Synagogue. If there is a serious discussion of the organization and its decisions to support this or that position, this should be included in the article. Aside from IJV, I did not find any such discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier and Ravpapa: At present the article seems to me to be in non controversial state in its coverage of a controversial group - but I am new here. The article contains the Press TV reference. I haven't seen a diff relating to an address edit as mentioned but am unsure as to the importance of this content. As per edit by StevenJ81 at 13:45, 24 April 2015 I think it may be best to let other editors have some time and space to work on the article at least in tandum if they have not already done so. NeilN I think wisely said "Suggest the editor focus on something else" but I am not sure whether this is a recommendation to leave this article entirely. GregKaye 13:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was. SPAs perceived to be pushing a viewpoint are looked on disfavorably on Wikipedia. Showing you can be constructive in other areas lessens the suspicions about your motives for editing Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing copyright violation

Why am I quibbling over minutiae with Internetwikier? Almost this entire article is copied from the United Synagogue website, and is a copyright violation.

I have deleted the sections that I found verbatim on the website. I am sure other sections are also violations, but I didn't have time to look carefully. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: Good idea to remove the copied content, that's not what wp is about after all.

Minutiae it most certainly isn't: factually accurate content, referenced, is to be allowed on here.

Internetwikier (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten this article to remove copyright violations and vandalism. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa:

You are not providing sources for your assertions and you are attempting to censor the edits that do have references. do not do this without providing references or I will involve admins. Internetwikier (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Interwikier:: The material you have added to this page is synthesis, misleading, and constitutes vandalism. You cite as a source for your claim that "The organization has never shied away from taking positions on controversial political issues" a Telegraph article that does not mention United Synagogue. You quote a website called "PressTV" which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You cite a Jewish Chronicle article to support your statement that "The United Synagogue led its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants with this issue," but the article says no such thing.

I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing this article, if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Largely agree but the JC article does say "Its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants led on the issue". Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is PressTV not considered a legitimate source of news? any less so than Al Jazeera, RT news, the BBC, Fox or CNN? You may not agree, but these are national broadcasters. You have no right to decide that this is not a legitimate news channel, revert the change immediately. Internetwikier (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

PressTV's reliability is controversial but in the context, mention of their accusation is probably valid. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism by the state radio of Iran??? Give me a break. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputes over the reliability of sources can be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an English language Wiki page, not a US-centric 'fox news = news' fan page. You may not appreciate the viewpoint Press TV bring, but they're a state TV station and their news is leagues more informed than the nonsense spouted by the 80% of US news organizations. TBH, that's been the whole problem with these page edits - US (and Israeli especially) wikiadmins and editors, like you, consider anything that isn't within your narrow world view to be #not accurately sourced#. Live and learn. Internetwikier (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all "state TV" stations are the same. Some, such as the BBC, just get arms-length funding from the government in return for providing public services. Others, such as Press TV and RT, toe the government line in order to spread propaganda. Sources in the latter group are generally not reliable sources. Well, perhaps Press TV is a reliable source for mundane events in Iran, but not for international relations, and certainly not for rants about "zionist pressure groups". bobrayner (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Press TV is a perfectly acceptable source of news - your US Neocon world view does not give you the justification for denigrating other sources of news - they are deemed acceptable and should remain as they pass the Wiki test of a reliable news organization. Internetwikier (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier, that comment about a "US Neocon world view" is a personal attack - and a lie. If you retract it voluntarily, your comments might retain some credibility. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to post at the reliable sources noticeboard. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from the reliable sources noticeboard) The issue here is not so much the reliability of Press TV as a news source, but rather its relevance to the article. The quote used in the article (that United Synagogues is a "Zionist pressure group") is not factual but editorial, and is, in fact, presented as such in the article. The quote is presented to support the claim that United Synagogues' position on Israel ("Israel and Zionism", as the editor insists on stating) is somehow controversial in Britain. But in my understanding, a three-word reference by an indisputably biased Iranian state radio station is not in any way an indication of the existence of controversy.

In fact, there is some controversy in Britain, and specifically among British Jews, over the unqualified support of Israel by Britain's Jewish establishment (primarily the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but also of United Synagogue). That controversy is best represented by the organization Independent Jewish Voices, which was established specifically as a counterbalance to the establishment position.

For some reason that evades me, user Internetwikier feels that the off-hand comment by an Iranian propaganda machine is more significant a criticism than a grassroots British organization of some standing.

Well, so be it. The truth is, I don't have any strong feelings about this. His edits make the entire article seem to have been written with a clear bias, and add to the general stigma against Wikipedia's coverage of Jewish and middle east issues. But I am done banging my head here. Let others take up the fight. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa,

In the world of social and political science 'factual' is a natural sciences jargon that is nearly always unattainable and very often unverifiable independently. Your use of the term 'factual' belies your true understanding of this (and possible many other) issue. The United Synagogues has NEVER denied its support for Zionist Israel - supporting BICOM, We Believe in Israel, The Office of The Chief Rabbi and The British Board of Deputies, who all quite clearly and publicly support Zionism. You yourself acknowledge this, so why pretend that this hasn't been 1) noticed and 2) commented upon by a national TV organisation? It follows therefore that The United Synagogue has a very clear and discernible stance on Zionism.

You subsequently recognize that there is disagreement about the Zionist blueprint of what 'an Israel' should be, in contrast to your objection to the previous comments by PressTV, but suggest that the existence of Independent Jewish Voices is 'information enough' and that no explicit mention of 'in relation to what' this new organization was founded, specifically its objection to the propagandist messages that the United Synagogues trumpets. You are not consistent, on the one had acknowledging that opposition groups exist, but not letting the full details as to what they oppose be made apparent. The United Synagogue has a stance on Zionist, and some object to this. Let the record show this. RT news and the BBC have also shown this. Many national news organizations , especially those in the Latin America and Africa concur with the 'Zionist = colonialism' line of reasoning - just because Fox News doesn't, doesn't mean you can bludgeon wiki-contributors with your prejudice against non-mainstream US newspapers. The 'Rest of World' does have a say, you know....

"For some reason that evades me, user Internetwikier feels that the off-hand comment by an Iranian propaganda machine is more significant a criticism than a grassroots British organization of some standing." - Feel free to ADD these extra sources, supplementing the content, instead of removing it. If it's valid, sourced, referenced and verifiable, then the material stands.

However, please note that as Independent Jewish Voices do not specifically reference BICOM, We Believe In Israel, or United Synagogues others have objected to these links being made, citing a lack of 'specific mention' of the united Synagogue as reason to remove these links/sources. How do you propose we get around this, form a wiki guidelines standpoint, as we all 'know' who the Independent Jewish Voices are objecting to.....but are unable to references them without an explicit mention as such. Thoughts?

Finally, there is no 'stigma on Wikipedia against Jews' or the middle east. Israeli Zionists may object to the content being made available but that's an entirely unrelated issue and a part of the Zionist-propaganda machine coming into play, citing 'antisemitism' to silence critics of Israeli state aggression and flagrant violations of international law. Don't bow to it because you fear being labelled a Jew Hater, you're better than that. Internetwikier (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources fit for an encyclopedia?

@Ravpapa:

On what basis is the source of footnote 7 , http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/contact , an unbiased , verifiable and reliable source of information fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Internetwikier (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia is a widely respected 12 volume work of scholarship which in the public domain since its copyright has expired. Of course, it is no value for the events of the last century, but it is an excellent source for earlier history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier:: It is not easy to quantify the reliability of sources. You could ask yourself: if I were writing a doctoral thesis, how would my professor look at this source? I think that, were you to cite the Jewish Encyclopedia in a doctoral thesis about United Synagogue, the professor would consider that sufficient verification of what you claim. On the other hand, were you to cite Iranian State Radio on a matter of fact, the professor would not consider that a serious source.

I'm not saying the professor would be right or wrong. But the standards we apply in Wikipedia for verification and reliability are, for better or worse, the same as those used in the academic community. And the academic community generally relies on the Jewish Encyclopedia and generally does not rely on Iranian State Radio (except, possibly, for events in Iran). --Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I understand your point that it's not easy to qualify the reliability of sources but I fear that your phraseology is really the question at hand here.

I would ask you, and the rest of Wikipedia, to examine how you have unquestioningly given the Jewish Encyclopedia, a US run non-profit organization, a 'free pass' regarding its inclusion as a valid source (with no way to independently check sources, as MY professor has pointed out!) and yet drawn attention to the Iranian provenience of PressTV, eliciting a well documented form of latent racism/anti-Iranian sentiment common to American citizens and publications that implies some perceived anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli bias.

Ask yourself this: If PressTV were run by, say, Argentinian, Australian, or the American state would you still assert that it is an invalid source of news? Or what if we replace PressTV with MSNBC - would this still be a 'controversial' source of news, considering the very public predilection that the United Synagogue has to actively promote Israel at every opportunity? I think not.

It's no secret here that most Wiki editors on the English version are from a United States background and with that comes an almost unconscious bias against anything Iranian, for the most part. Israeli's are even more extreme in their anti-Iranian bias. This needs to be considered when attempting to slur news organizations with racist, nationalistic tropes. There is no documented anti-Jewish sentiment from Iran - quite the contrary in fact - with a long and positive cultural history of Jews co-existing peacefully in Iran for many hundreds of years. I think you need to examine closely your ideas of US News organization hegemony and accept that many other people and nations see things VERY differently to US/Western European vantage points. Wiki should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you a comedian? http://global100.adl.org/#country/iran - 56% anti-Semitism! What about Ahmadinejad? I'm sorry, but that "no documented anti-Jewish sentiment" thing is the funniest thing I've heard for years! As for Israelis, do you realize plenty of Israelis are Iranian immigrants! Are they biased against Iran? No, you'll find Iran is psychotically biased against Israel. BTW, you might want to click where it says "choose subject" and select the Holocaust - 30% heard of, 63% denial. Bellezzasolo (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC

@Bellezzasolo: What a ridiculous survey - methodologically unsound, spurious extrapolation of figures from tiny TINY sample sizes and sponsored by Israel itself! You joker. This is categorically partisan unscientific piece of propaganda. Try again, but with reliable references or statistically reliable survey data only. This is just the sort of nonsense that Bibi might say at the UN - don't happen to have a large cartoon sized bomb with a fizzing wick to hand? ;)

As for Iran - your source of data is this very same bunkum survey! Do you speak Farsi? Have you lived in Iran? I doubt it. Please provide the source of this documented anti-Jewish sentiment, if you know of its existence. We'd all love to read it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetwikier (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Our article Press TV controversies provides plenty of evidence that this station is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, including evidence of its bias against Jews. I will oppose its use as a reliable source for any factual assertion, although it can be used as a source for the opinions of its contributors. There is no need for any such opinions in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In light of the developing consensus of editors here, and the controversial nature of Press TV, it does not seem to be a reliable or relevant source for this article. I am therefore removing the reference. @Internetwikier:, since you have offered this citation as evidence that there is controversy over the United Synagogue's positions on Israel, I'm sure you can find more and better sources contesting United Synagogue (not general criticisms of support for Israel, but specific references to United Synagogue and its positions). Otherwise, it appears there is no such controversy, and the whole section should be removed or distilled into a single sentence. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that Press TV is a reliable source for this characterization of United Synagogue, I suggest you reopen the discussion at WP:RSN. In any case, I advise you not to revert the edit, but to discuss it here. You have already been dinged several times for edit warring, and next time you are likely to be blocked. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Internetwikier: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Holocaust_denial#Holocaust_denial_in_Iran for a start. Oh, and you call ADL unreliable? http://global100.adl.org/public/ADL-Global-100-Executive-Summary.pdf Their methodology.

"The Anti-Defamation League commissioned First International Resources to research attitudes and opinions toward Jews in more than 100 countries around the world. Fieldwork and data collection for this global public opinion project were conducted and coordinated by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. All interviews were conducted between July 2013 and February 2014. The data is a result of 53,100 total interviews among citizens aged 18 and over, across 101 countries and the Palestinian Territories in the West Bank & Gaza. Expected margin of sampling error for the weighted global average is +/- 0.97%, for the countries/territories surveyed with n=500 interviews it is +/- 4.4% and for countries sampled with n=1,000 interviews it is +/- 3.2%. The margin of error is higher for sub-groups within each geography. Interviews were conducted via landline telephones, mobile phones and face-to-face discussions in 96 languages (including many dialects and pidgin/creole versions). All respondents were selected at random. Telephone respondents were selected using random-digit dial sampling; face-to-face respondents were selected using geographically stratified, randomly-selected sampling points in each country and at the household level, using a Kish grid." Does that sound unreliable to you? I do statistics by the way.

As for Israel supporting ADL, if it's true (which it may well be), does that make a survey on anti-Semitism automatically biased? Would the same be true if Pakistan funded an Islamophobia survey. Tiny sample sizes? You must be joking. --Bellezzasolo (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate referencing and source misrepresentation is going unchecked by participants of this page. Please, can all sources be checked to confirm that they do conform to WP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.225 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy?

I rewrote the section on support for Israel, and added a paragraph about organizations (two) that arose as counters to the pro-Israeli positions of the United Synagogue and other establishment Jewish organizations of Britain. I erred in the footnotes for this paragraph, and Dweller (correctly) deleted it as the footnote did not support the paragraph.

I have now put in the right footnotes. But I have no strong feelings about this paragraph, and if other editors think that controversy over the US's positions is inflated, I would be perfectly happy to remove it. If we remove it, I think we should just include the first paragraph in the section on Activities, and leave it at that.

Opinions invited. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Later: Dweller points out that neither of the references I gave cites US directly. There are references to the US on their websites, but I though that would be a bit over the edge. I now think that Dweller was right the first time, and we should just delete the paragraph. I await other opinions before proceeding. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an WP:UNDUE issue here. This is a very old and very large organisation, and a miniscule amount of what they do relates to an issue and we're being pushed to give serious space to discussing it. RS attacking them over current or past issues to do with ritual, religious ethos, appointments, their chief rabbi, relationships with their constituent synagogues, financial dealings or misdealings, how their burial scheme works or whatnot would be justifiable, but this seems daft. And massively UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly removed the offending paragraph, without waiting for more opinions. If anyone opposes, we can continue to discuss it here. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there is a reliable source to support the notion that one or both of these organizations oppose the US support of Israel—or at least opposed the particular lobbying initiative currently mentioned in the article? If so, you would be far better off adding back a sentence about that opposition.

Understand: on the whole, I agree with both of you. But if adding a sentence back would shield the article and its editors from accusations of censorship, then that's worthwhile.

A whole discussion of/attack on US over this issue? WP:UNDUE, for certain. But much as I hate to admit it, opposition to support of Israel by Jewish communal organizations, while a distinctly minority position, isn't FRINGE, either. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem, @StevenJ81, is that, while there are a number of British Jewish organizations that seek to be a counterweight to the strongly pro-Israel stance of the establishment organizations, none of them mention United Synagogue by name. Primarily, their criticisms are aimed at the Board of Deputies and BICOM. United Synagogue, as an orthodox religious organization, has been immune from criticism. I, at least, could not find a single third-party source that mentioned a criticism of United Synagogue by another activist organization (Jewish or not, for that matter). So there really is no justification at all for including it in the article.

On the other hand, you could add such criticisms to the articles on BICOM and the Board of Deputies, because such criticisms have been reported in the general press (there is, for example, a Guardian article on what British Jews think about the "Cast Lead" campaign).

I have pretty much tired of the whole topic, but if you do a few Google searches, you are likely to find something worthy of inclusion in those articles. Good luck, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

<edit conflict, reply to Rav Papa> And there's a reason for that gap in the sources, and the reason is the same reason as why we cite UNDUE. Because when compared to both a) the United Synagogue's varied religious activities and b) the focused and whole-hearted efforts made by other Anglo-Jewish organisations to support Israel, this aspect of the United Synagogue's work is inconsequential. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, and I'm almost of tired of it as you. (Remember, I only showed up in the first place to mediate.) We'll see what, if anything, I do about it—and if I do, then I guess it won't be here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Umbrella organizations

I added links to Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish Leadership Council. I don't think that goes against the consensus above about support by the board for (the existence of) Israel (which I didn't mention). If I am wrong, please revert me and discuss. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Links to the Zionist nature of the JLC and Board of Deputies have been removed without reason. This is not a controversial addition to the page and is neutral, supported by content hosted on the organisations sites themselves. Can admins investigate why these edits have been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.136 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: @GregKaye: You appear to have been most recently involved on this talk page. I see an IP user has requested assistance on most recent content removal, call unanswered. Can you assist? 82.97.37.7 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hroðulf: Hi Hroðulf, appreciate your formatting corrections on the previous entry. User Internetwikier appears currently banned although I'm not sure this is forever - controversial as her (his?) edits are some of them do seem to highlight an apparent bias in wiki-contributors to this page. Are you perhaps willing to assist with the user request to arbitrate on the recent sourced content removal by previous 78.26 whose comment 'Quack' doesn't seem to be sufficient justification for content removal. If sourced I feel this material should appear in the article, although where about exactly is important too. Thoughts? 82.97.37.7 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)