Talk:AIPAC
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AIPAC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 18 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from American Israel Public Affairs Committee to AIPAC. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Correction to Mistake: While having endorsed over 100 Republican members of Congress who had voted against certifying Joe Biden's election[edit]
OOPS! Further research reveals that AIPAC later in April endorsed 109 Republican election deniers, which contradicts what I said below. Perhaps what is needed for the article is this footnote link at the end of the quoted sentence: https://www.jta.org/2022/04/21/politics/aipacs-new-pac-is-now-the-countrys-biggest-pro-israel-pac-and-endorses-3-4-of-republicans-who-embraced-election-falsehoods . It describes the original and the later endorsement. Perhaps the sentence could also be changed in this way: "While having endorsed later in April over 100 Republican members of Congress..." ___________ I'm leaving my original post, for those who want more context and want to double-check my conclusion: [Original Talk post] The endorsement apparently was for 37 Republican election deniers, not over a hundred. So the sentence beginning "While having endorsed over 100 Republican members of Congress who had voted against certifying Joe Biden's election" is mistaken. Apparently 120 members of Congress of BOTH parties were endorsed, based on various pro-Israel stances, which included the 37 Republican election deniers.
Here is the complete list: https://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-slammed-for-endorsing-republicans-who-refused-to-certify-bidens-election/amp/
These articles are also informative: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/aipac-pro-israel-group-backs-insurrectionist-republicans
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/18/pro-israel-lobby-group-aipac-midterms-election-deniers-and-extremist-republicans Deardavid7 (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 18 December 2023[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
American Israel Public Affairs Committee → AIPAC – The organization is known primarily as "AIPAC". Non-ambiguous common name. Schierbecker (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support as AIPAC appears to be the clear common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bad title for a reference document. Abbreviations like all forms of jargon are unhelpful to readers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose No need to change it from the full name to its more commonly used abbreviation, that's why we have redirects. Zorblin (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Support following re-review of the policy linked by SilverLocust in the given context. Zorblin (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a policy-based reason for your oppose? The fact that you agree "AIPAC" is more common puts this in WP:UCN territory. Schierbecker (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- After looking at what was posted by SilverLocust, the policy does support a move. Especially since I as an Israeli citizen cannot recount the full name, but do often mention the abbreviated name. While that is anecdotal, I think it still stands.Zorblin (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a policy-based reason for your oppose? The fact that you agree "AIPAC" is more common puts this in WP:UCN territory. Schierbecker (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The relevant guideline is at MOS:ACROTITLE. SilverLocust 💬 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Confusing sentence phrasing[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence Cuellar called Amnesty International "antisemitic" after the release of its report accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid, in agreement with the Human Right Watch and other Israeli and international human rights groups
in section § United Democracy Project spending is confusingly phrased. When I initially read it I interpreted it as meaning that the HRW and other rights groups agreed with Cuellar's accusation of antisemitism, instead of the factual reality of them agreeing with Amnesty's accusation of genocide. Thus, the sentence should be rephrased. (I would submit a proper edit request, but I don't quite have enough time to do that properly so I am leaving this as message instead for other editors to take up the task, and/or a a note to self to remind me) – 99.146.242.37 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- DoneI edited this section when the request was submitted. Fixed the quote (which was wrong), added a cite to support HRC's role in the matter (the existing cite didn't cover it), and I think all is clear and correct now. (Note: I just removed an errant "not done for now" response, because it was done.) -- M.boli (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Inaccurate/confusing statement from unreliable source[edit]
"AIPAC describes itself as a bipartisan organization, and the bills for which it lobbies in Congress are always jointly sponsored by both a Democrat and Republican."
The way this is written implies that the organization is factually bipartisan and does not clarify that the second statement is a claim by AIPAC rather than an observed fact. The phrasing "the bills [...] are always jointly sponsored" is simply a falsehood. A counterclaim from an authentic source should also be added to state how aligned the organization truly is between Democrats and Republicans.
Finally, the source used (Times of Israel) could be argued to be biased or have conflict of interest to say AIPAC is bipartisan. A reliable American or international source would be needed for this issue. I.Elgamal (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since you do not have the extendedconfirmed privilege you are limited to making edit requests on this page. You are much more likely to have your request handled if you follow the guideline at WP:EDITXY and include one or more reliable sources to support your proposed change. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Controversies section[edit]
AIPAC has been thoroughly criticized and has innumerable controversies mentioned in the literature but the section seems to focus more on criticism by US politicians which sort of misses the big picture. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Espionage articles
- Low-importance Espionage articles