This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
I'm having trouble understanding the intended import of May 13's edit by Soosim. If there was something unusual about this particular visit, it is not described in the edit or the source. What made it different from a garden-variety everyday visit, such as this one, where AIPAC brought a passel of Congress Critters? M.boli (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
certainly didn't mean to be mysterious...i think it is quite impressive that a jewish group went to ramallah and met with abbas. this is not an official US gov't thing with congressmen, etc. but a jewish non-profit. if it is not unusual, then delete it. sorry. Soosim (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything mysterious about it, I just think it's in the wrong section. I think we should also consider including other J Street activities, such as Congressional delegations they lead to Israel. I'm just not sure where they belong the way the article is currently structured. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 11:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Reception section
to answer my friend malik's rfc: because recent makes more sense than historical. someone reading an entry will be more concerned about more recent events than something which happened 5 years ago. if that is of interest as well, then s/he will continue to read. not sure why you feel this is a problem? Soosim (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that a section titled "Reception" should start with the earliest reception of the organization, as the article currently does, and move to the most recent.
Can you point me to any other articles that are written in reverse chronological order, as you propose? — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
i can, but won't. wiki's "other things exist" and whatnot...ya know. this has to stand on its own. why start with something which is 5 years old? Soosim (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the group is five years old, and its reception starts five years ago? — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
and next year they will be six years old? Soosim (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Opposition and critics views do not belong in the lead
Most Wikipedia articles about organizations working to influence public opinion in the United States, including American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Brady Campaign, National Rifle Association, Focus on the Family, and NARAL Pro-Choice America, omit or barely mention opposition and critics in the lead paragraphs. American Israel Public Affairs Committee mentions the existence of critics in the third paragraph, but only for the purposes of stating that there is a range of views on where organization fits in the liberal–conservative U.S. political spectrum, not for putting forth any actual criticism of the organization. It is inappropriate for such criticisms of J Street to appear in the lead, especially supported by biased sources as Christian Broadcasting Network (founded by Pat Robertson), Commentary, and neoconservative Jennifer Rubin. And the Washington Post piece is listed as if it were a news story, when it is actually a blog entry. These biased criticisms don't belong in the lead, and I am soon going to move them out of the lead, unless someone else beats me to it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no justification for putting every organization with some views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, under 1RR. This has to be changed. J Street is not part of the conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)