Talk:AIPAC

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)Reply

  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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The lead sentence says, “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC/ˈeɪpæk/ AY-pak) is a Zionist lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the legislative and executive branches of the United States.” This seems redundant and confusing, and I suggest removing the word “Zionist”. The sentence already says pro-Israel. From a historical perspective, AIPAC was founded in 1953 after Israel already existed, so there was no time at which AIPAC was Zionist but not pro-Israel, and it is not clear what the word “Zionist” adds to the word “pro-Israel” other than to suggest (without any reliable sourcing) that AIPAC wants Israel to be more Jewish than it already is. Anyway, it’s undue weight for the lead sentence, though perhaps someone can write a subsection about it if reliable sourcing can be found. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The word "Zionist" seems to have been added (on June 23) for no good reason. While "pro-Israel" has a commonly understood meaning, "Zionist" has a whole range of meanings and is distinctly unhelpful here. Misha Wolf (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The addition of the word "Zionist" has been reverted by @M.boli. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Zionism is back in the opening sentence of the lead. AIPAC was founded in 1954 as the “American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs” (AZCPA), which was changed to the current name in 1959. So the old name is not an alternative name, but rather an old archaic/obsolete name. It was changed in 1959 to describe a broader commitment, and so the old name is also not accurate as a current designation. Therefore, I don’t think it should be in the opening sentence of the lead. According to MOS:ALTNAME, such names “should not be placed in the first sentence.” However, discussing it in the history section is fine, along with its original parent organization (American Zionist Council). The cited Rossinow source also describes that the meaning of “Zionism” has changed since the 1950s: “In 1959, the AZCPA was renamed AIPAC, 'Israel' replacing 'Zionist.' The new name acknowledged ostensibly non-Zionist participants in the committee….American Jews redefined Zionism to mean providing staunch and generally unquestioning support for the State of Israel, so long as the leaders of Jewish Israel maintained respect for the legitimacy and integrity of American Jewry as a Jewish community.” So this makes the old AZCPA name doubly obsolete/archaic: the membership of the organization changed, and the meaning of the old name also changed. By analogy, from 1921 to 2004 the Government Accountability Office used to be called the “General Accounting Office”, and the latter obsolete name is not in the opening sentence of our Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• So I removed it from the opening sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Anythingyouwant: The guideline you cited and partly quoted relates to archaic names before the standardization of English orthography, and does not relate to this situation. The relevant guideline here is WP:ON: "Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them, or they are relatively obscure.” Clearly, the two cited exceptions do not apply here and the former name should be introduced. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  For starters, WP:ON is an essay rather than a guideline, and so it’s not binding on us at all, it’s common for different essays to take different sides of the exact same issue. It says, “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” Also, the essay you quote does not suggest putting old names into the opening sentence of a lead, as opposed to elsewhere in the lead. As to the question whether this particular old name is obscure or archaic, I submit that it is obscure, because it was only used for a few years in the 1950s, & because the meaning of the key word it uses has changed since then (i.e. this is an archaic usage). Even if it had not changed meaning, we would still have to explain that the name was changed because the membership and mission of the organization changed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Anythingyouwant: It is an explanatory essay indeed of the WP:Article titles guideline, whose WP:OTHERNAMES section states that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." In that section, they give the example of Mercury (element), whose former name was Hydrargyrum. I find this to be an analogous situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Makeandtoss, I’ve just made a redirect for AZCPA, so now we have a redirect in addition to discussing it in the history section of the present article. The question is whether AZCPA should also be in the lead, either in the opening sentence or later in the lead. You find the word “Hydrargyrum” and its synonym “Mercury” to be an analogous situation, so I assume you’re willing to keep the old AZCPA (either spelled out or as an acronym) out of the opening sentence, given that “Hydrargyrum” is not in the opening sentence of the article about Mercury (element). But I’m not so sure AZCPA should be anywhere in the present lead, for several reasons. Please note that the policy you cite does not mention “Hydrargyrum”, but that’s fine, the policy likewise doesn’t mention the example I gave above (“Government Accountability Office”). The word “Hydrargyrum” is mostly obsolete now, except that it is always mentioned when explaining where the current chemical symbol for Mercury (Hg) comes from. The main distinction that I ask you to consider is that the meaning of “Hydrargyrum” hasn’t changed one iota in 500 years, it has always referred to exactly the same thing throughout that time: the element we now call Mercury. In contrast, the name “American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA)” has changed in two substantial ways: first, our sources say the meaning of the word Zionist has changed substantially; second, the name was dropped because the nature of the organization changed substantially, including non-zionists as members. So this to me seems very different from “Hydrargyrum”, and so I would just leave it for the history section. It’s an alternative name for a different organization, and the alternative name also means something different from when it was in use. I’m happy to kick back and see what others think about it, but for now I support the status quo. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Opening paragraph rather than opening sentence, or the second lede paragraph mentioning the 1953 context. And I was referring to the image in the section mentioning the hydrogen example, not the text. Regardless of whether the meaning of the term Zionist has changed or not, which I personally don’t think it has, it is still an alternative name that is relevant to the fact that this is a Zionist organization, just as Hg is to Mercury. I also don’t think it is reasonable to say that AIPAC has any non-Zionist members. In any case, I think it’s an important mention in the lede that conforms with guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You seem to be disagreeing with our sources. The cited Rossinow source describes that the name was dropped because the organization ostensibly changed: “In 1959, the AZCPA was renamed AIPAC, 'Israel' replacing 'Zionist.' The new name acknowledged ostensibly non-Zionist participants in the committee….” That source also says the meaning of “Zionist” changed: “American Jews redefined Zionism to mean providing staunch and generally unquestioning support for the State of Israel, so long as the leaders of Jewish Israel maintained respect for the legitimacy and integrity of American Jewry as a Jewish community.” Feel free to present sources that say otherwise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Interesting definition and bit, but this is viewpoint is exclusive to American Jewry, some of them involved in AIPAC at least, which shouldn’t be particularly relevant to us. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The logo on this page seems to be an older logo. There is a new logo visible on AIPAC’s homepage. Makemeaname22 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply