Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/OED

Unresolved Oxford Dictionary Quote

John Nagle wrote above: The Oxford English Dictionary uses the term as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".<TEFThe Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1074, 2nd Edition, 1989.

It has gone back and forth in reverts among at least 4 people since then. Would the complainants who keep deleting it explain their problem with it?? Thanks. Carol Moore 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please re-read these comments from outside parties regarding this:[1] They were made weeks ago, I'm sure you saw them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was just a tiny slice of the whole discussion which is included here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Providing_examples_of_use_of_a_term. So you should summarize your rationale for deleting the section here, rather than citing partial discussions. Carol Moore 15:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Here are the relevant parts of the analysis:

"The usage of the OED source seems dubious at best. To paraphrase heavily, it seems to be saying, "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." To my eye, that looks suspiciously like original research. In general, we should avoid discussing usage of a term in sources, and should instead rely upon sources that actually discuss the term. In the case of usage, we're not really using a source as a source, but as raw data for our own analysis. Suppose that we were to write an article entitled "use of language in the Journal of English Literature", in which we analysed word length, mean words per sentence, etc. Even though we're citing perfectly reliable sources, this is quite evidently original research. What's the difference here? To my mind, only the degree to which we're performing the analysis. Jakew (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)"

:I was all set to believe that it would be impossible to find an OED definition that wasn't an appropriate use, and then you went and proved me wrong. This is a clear misuse of the OED, coupled with an appeal to its authority. The OED in this case doesn't define "Jewish lobby", but rather quotes a third party using it in the context of another definition. So saying "The OED says it, it must be true" is, in this case, disingenuous. Stepping back for a minute, I think the presence of the term in the OED and the London Review of Books is proof of something, but not necessarily proof of what the term "Jewish lobby" means. I think that if you want to make an argument about what the terms "Jewish lobby" mean, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly defines the term, not infer the meaning from context -- which is original research. That's my personal opinon, anyway." Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the view of people not actually involved in the Jewish lobby article. Any further questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Carol, did you have any further comments about the points made at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Providing_examples_of_use_of_a_term? Do you agree that the phrase being used in a sentence under the definition of another term isn't the same as OED defining the term? Shell ^babelfish 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote those who defended this at length in section Jayjg selectively quoted. However, if John Nagle or others do not choose to defend it, I will drop it. (please leave format lines to separate text.

---

From Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Providing_examples_of_use_of_a_term

• You've asked for an example of the sources Jayjg is deleting. One of my favorites is in fact the Oxford English Dictionary (OED2). This is the paragraph he deleted:

The term "Jewish lobby" has been used to refer to the groups organized in the US and other countries to promote the special interests of their Jewish members. The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener: "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby .. backed the Jews".

(another example deleted) There are of course more, but I think this should give you a good idea of what we have been dealing with for the past year. We look forward to an opinion to help resolve this long-standing conflict. Thank you! Jgui (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I must say I am very surprised by the reaction here. Perhaps this is because the context of the quote from the OED is not clear. In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (which I discussed in the Talk page; perhaps more of it is needed in the article):

OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

You say "as a general rule it's usually quite difficult to source a claim that a term is a neologism", which I think is a fair statement. But doesn't the same argument also apply even more strongly to an adjective phrase which has its meaning exactly as stated, and which has been used in that manner for decades? The phrase consists of the adjective "Jewish" qualifying the noun "lobby", giving us "a lobby for the Jewish", which is exactly how the "Jewish lobby" is being defined in the OED, namely as a lobby for the special-interests of its Jewish members. You are asking us to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term", but that seems to me as silly as asking me to find a dictionary "which explicitely defines the term" "fast car". Clearly no dictionary will "explicitely" define the phrase "fast car" as "a car that is fast" since its meaning is patently obvious. But does that mean that we should be blocked from using the phrase "fast car" to mean "a car that is fast" in a WP article about "fast cars"?

Your statement that I am "inferring the meaning from context" is very strange to me. In fact I am not "inferring the meaning from context", I am citing its use from the OED to explicitely illustrate a definition of a "special interest lobby". Am I misunderstanding you somehow?

You also paraphrase me as saying "the OED happens to include a quote that refers to the 'Jewish lobby' in a way in which we, the Wikipedia editors, believe serves as an example of a special interest lobby." I hope I have shown by giving the full citation from the OED that your paraphrase is clearly inaccurate: that in fact the OED doesn't just "happen" to include the quote: they are using it for the purpose of illustrating what a special interest lobby is, and they are undeniably using it in this way and that the judgement of Wikipedia editors is in no way involved.

None of you really discusses the second quote that Jayjg has repeatedly removed with claims of WP:NOR due to WP:NEO except to say "As used, the quote seems to be too long and is largely an 'example' rather than a 'discussion'." I think you will have to agree that the length of the quote is not relevant to whether its use is original research. I would paraphrase that quote as: "There is a lobby, called the "Israel lobby" by us and the "Jewish lobby" by Israeli media, which uses as a tactic a false claim of "antisemitism" to attack anyone who criticises Israel or even mentions that there IS such a lobby". Do you disagree with my paraphrase? And can you explain how you can argue that the quote is an 'example' rather than a 'discussion' when the authors are clearly discussing the use of the term by themselves and by the Israeli media and by the Lobby they are describing? And are you arguing that this paragraph, or at least all but a short portion of it, should be blocked from WP due to a concern about WP:NOR? If so, could you explain where the original research is? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Continuing the quote from WP:SYN above truncated by Jayjg (talk · contribs): "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." --John Nagle (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Carol Moore 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Believe it or not, I do read the links people give ;) I didn't mention those opinions because both Nagle and Jgui are involved in this dispute. The opinions in that section that appear to have been outside opinions are: Nandesuka, Leifern, Jakew, Blueboar, IronDuke, SlimVirgin, and G-Dett. Of the outside opinions, most agreed that this use of the OED was original research via the synthesis clause. Do you disagree with that summary of the discussion (regardless of whether or not you feel those people were correct)? Shell ^babelfish 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I haven't decided, since it had stayed in article for a month after above discussion, so I wanted to question here why suddenly deleted. Obviously since it has been deamed WP:OR by some credible editors and those who wanted the quote no longer defend it, I won't try to enter again. Better, more defendable quotes have come up since. ;-) Carol Moore 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Parties have agreed not to use this particular quote. Shell ^babelfish 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally added this quote, and I described its importance HERE, and I certainly do not consider this topic closed. Jgui (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archive for an explanation of why this was agreed to be original research. We will not be revisiting this topic during mediation. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 05:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see agreement, I saw an editor say that she disagreed but that she wanted someone else to argue the issue. Since it was a quote that I added, I think it is reasonable that I should be given the chance to discuss this. Do you disagree? If so why? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seven outside editors agreed that this usage was original research. If you want to bring this up elsewhere, you are welcome to do so, but we will not be revisiting this issue here. Shell ^babelfish 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Those "outside" editors were nothing of the sort. Most of them had previously edited the Jewish Lobby page, editing with and supporting Jayjg in his claim that the term is solely an antisemitic "neologism". The two other editors who Jayjg quoted have no experience with policy or Original Research (one of them seems to specialize in editing pages about penises and vaginas, not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't necessarily give me much confidence in his views about Original Research). And the fact that they appeared on that page without previously making any other contributions there also makes me question their experience with WP Original Research policy. Why are you unwilling to allow a discussion of this issue, when you said on your page to me that "there's no schedule or time limit being imposed"? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit to still being up in the air about this which is why I am glad Jgui is here to argue it. (And interesting if true about those editors on the WP:OR talk page.) If it is going to remain an issue after mediation, it seems like it would defeat the purpose now that (better late than never) Jgui is here to defend it. Carol Moore 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}