"Justin Olypen" has been, as I understand Wikipedia conventions, violating NPOV guidelines with the following inflammatory propagandistic entries:
Special Interest Lobby Groups and Middle East Policy[edit]
Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [18]
In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to hold an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [19]"
I have amended the entries thus:
"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's national defense.[17]
Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military. [18]
On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [19]"
Please compare for "neutrality."
We have been reverting each other's revisions; rather than continue this cycle ad infinitum into an edit war, or escalating, I am inclined to submit the issue to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If any Wikipedia edit overseers (such as Dr. K (Δρ.Κ), who likes to intervene on points of policy) would like to chime in, that would be useful. Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
czypcamayoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless Israel only used the military aid given to them from the US for defense, which, in their maintenance of the illegal occupation of Palestine, they do not, then it should be stated that it goes to their military, not "defense" to eliminate the bias that may be understood as opposing petulant theocratic assassins as "defense." [1]
Transparently specious reasoning. The state of Israel, a member of the United Nations, responds to acts of violence by institutions openly dedicated to its destruction. That is by definition and by international law, defense. However, the point here is not to attempt a resolution of this controversy on this page or on Representative Kilmer's dedicated Wikipedia page; is to maintain the neutral point of view that is the foundation of Wikipedia's editorial policy. Do you get that? The Palestinian issue has many venues given to it; please confine your preaching to those.Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
One can simply click on the link for the AIPAC luncheon to see it is not invitation-only, but rather open to any member of a group that gives $1,500+ to the pro Israel lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.13.29 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. That gets you an invitation.Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: the meeting date is in the past, and the meeting was canceled ([2]
); to state that "In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to attend an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors" is untrue and "poorly sourced."Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
July 12 2014 Thanks, Wikimaestros (maestri?) BGwhite, Ewen, OhnoitsJamie, and Yobot, for your good revisions; at last I can stand down. It has been a chore, but it looks alright to me now.Czypcamayoc (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
