Talk:AIPAC/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Revelations About AIPAC

New documents debunk a great deal of the assertions made on this wiki entry. I propose that we correct it over the next week making the following changes:

1. That AIPAC did not exist as a separate entity before 1965. It was really just a committee within the older American Zionist Council, as supported by Senate Testimony.

http://irmep.org/ILA/Senate/default.asp

2. That AZC was created under the direction of David Ben Gurion in 1952 as a point of contact for Israel to give lobbying direction to supporters in the US (NYT article).

3. That AIPAC was the product of a 1965 shell company reorganization after the DOJ ordered the AZC to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1961. The AZC had to shut down in '65.

http://irmep.org/ILA/AZCDOJ/P6100127redorder/default.asp

4. That AIPAC serves as a US outpost for the Mossad.

(this news hit just recently.) http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=86623

Please let me know if there are any objections to these modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonResidentFellow (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Update a link in the endnotes

{{editsemiprotected}} There's a link in the endnotes to an article in The Nation ("American Jews Rethink Israel"). That link no longer works. It should be replaced with this: http://www.thenation.com/article/american-jews-rethink-israel David Umpteen (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Also, note that if you make just two more edits to anywhere - e.g. WP:SANDBOX - you will be able to edit semiprotected files yourself. Chzz  ►  01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Footnote 4 doesn't have the information required to get to the paper. That can be found here: http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670 Walt, Stephen and John J. Mearsheimer. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-011, March 2006. 24.126.196.6 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This should have a working URL now: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf

Terrorist Organization

There should probably be a section about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.184.3 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? --193.1.34.2 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:MUCHERS22

I have reverted[1] edits by User:MUCHERS22. As far as I can see, those edits are non-neutral and contain WP:OR and do not accurately reflect what the source cited says. The source[2] does not mention anything about the "huge imapct" of AIPAC or about AIPAC having been "the driving force behind the sanctions from the start". Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How is non-neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The "huge impact" part is not neutrally worded; per WP:NPOV, strong language is best avoided at all and when used, it must be supported by particularly convincing sourcing. The part about AIPAC being "the driving force behind the sanctions from the start" is not supported by any source cited here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the article itself state in atlest 3 places the power this lobby have on foreign policy. But primary, why did you remove all? Including the sentence which had the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained in my original post above why I reverted your edit - a part of it was non-neutral and another part was not supported by the source cited. With a significantly flawed edit like that, the proper thing to do is to revert it and discuss it at the talk page, which is exactly what I did. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you didnt have a reason for removing the sourced stuff. But everyhing is ok now, the current sentence about the sanctions seems to be satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The last edit you made introduced a malformatted and grammatically incorrect sentence "And have been one the driving force behind the sanctions from the start." Even if one fixes the grammar here, the source cited[3] does not support this statement. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You missunderstand. Some stuff werent sourced which of course could be removed. BUT you removed also the sourced stuff which you have no right to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are quite wrong here. In case of a seriously problematic edit, like yours was, the correct thing to do is to revert the entire edit first and then discuss it at the talk page rather to try to salvage it on the fly. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, just remove the bad parts and it would be all fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

New information about AIPAC

I propose that the AIPAC wikipedia entry be expanded to include the following subjects:

1. Early Donors. According to new research, people involved in organized crime and Israel's nuclear weapons program provided significant amounts of start-up capital to AIPAC. AIPAC apparently tried to coverup the Israeli nuclear weapons program in the US media PR campaign:

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/08/29/ground-zero-mosque-aipac/

2. Pornography @ AIPAC. According to recent court files cited by Jacob Heilbrun and others, a significant percentage of AIPAC employees use the nonprofit's tax preferred resources to view pornography and arrange sexual liaisons at work.

http://nationalinterest.org/node/4439

3. Tax Status under investigation. According to Accounting Today, AIPAC's tax exemption was alleged to be granted based on a fraudulent application. There appears to be a lot of content about that available.

http://www.accountingtoday.com/debits_credits/Group-Asks-IRS-Revoke-AIPAC-Tax-Exemption-56450-1.html

4. Former director alleges classified US government document circulation. A former employee, Steven J. Rosen, swore to a DC court in 2010 that AIPAC trafficks in classified US government information. He told the Washington Post "I will introduce documentary evidence that AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information."

Any objections to adding all of this sourced material? Just wanted to check before getting down to work...3456truth (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

whoops, i think I accidentally erased previous discussion. can an advanced user fix that? thanks!3456truth (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh! None of my sourced changes to the page seem to be taking, anyone know why?3456truth (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of stuff really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. You write the accounting today thing as if that publication is making the accusation, when in fact its an outside group that's doing so and accounting today states: "The IRS has increasingly been on the receiving end of letters from various groups demanding that the tax-exempt status of groups opposed to their ideology or political or religious leanings be investigated or revoked. As the IRmep filing shows, that trend shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon." Points 1, 2 and 4 strike me as basically gossip. Rosen is a disgraced ex-employee who made some claims. We already have plenty of serious criticism of AIPAC in the article, we shouldn't be piling on rumors and non-events. GabrielF (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Mob money in AIPAC seems relevant. Nuclear funding coordinator Abe Feinberg's donations and AIPAC's coverups of Israeli nukes seems pretty suspicious. And actually, Rosen placed a ton of internal AIPAC documents into the public domain to back up his claims about AIPAC information trafficking. Seems worth mentioning other US government classified docs held by AIPAC. According to court docs, "Rosen documented a two-decade span of AIPAC intelligence collection to back up his claims. AIPAC obtained a 'secret National Security Decision Directive #99 calling on the Armed Services and Secretary of Defense to explore the potential for stepped-up strategic cooperation.' AIPAC gleaned classified annual reports of secret U.S. arms transfers. AIPAC skimmed classified law enforcement files about North African financial transfers to African-American political activists, which it then used to discredit Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign. AIPAC suctioned up classified U.S. intelligence about Khartoum. An AIPAC board member funneled classified raw U.S. signals intelligence into a lobbying effort, while another AIPAC employee solicited and received classified information about secret U.S. understandings with Saudi Arabia."

I wonder if there's another allegedly American nonprofit lobby that trafficks in so much stolen classified government information. Seems to distinguish AIPAC from the others, while calling into question its claimed purpose/configuration. Oh, I forget. Nobody likes that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3456truth (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Good point

History

I notice that the original info "Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs." has been removed. Why has this been removed, other than the obvious? Vexorg (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Even http://www.aipac.org/en/About%20AIPAC itself states it was founded in the 1950s, and the following line in this article states 1953

3456truth's edits

I have reached my limits for reverts (see WP:3RR) but I feel that 3456truth's edits are introducing non-neutral and badly-referenced material into this article. Specifically, I'm concerned that 3456truth is adding the text "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." into a citation to the AIPAC website, although this fact does not appear on that website. I also feel that 3456truth is replacing material that is appropriate for the lede in that it provides a general summary of two opposing positions about the organization and its critics with information about a very specific instance that occurred 25 years ago and is covered two paragraphs later. I don't understand why we need to quote the FBI stating that they received an "unsubstantiated allegation". GabrielF (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC's founder, Isaiah L. Kenen, worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, until he founded AIPAC. According to his biography, he colluded with his former employers who were looking for a front man to lobby Congress as an American, rather than an Israeli dealing with the Department of State. This is the origin of AIPAC, a stealth foreign agent. At one point, this wiki had important information about AIPAC's true origins and Kenen. I guess we need to beef that history up, because this page has been going down hill as far as facts are concerned. 3456truth (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC has been under investigation almost constantly since it split off from the AZC. Therefor it is an integral part of its history to show and repeat specific examples of investigations and allegations of criminal activity from the time it emerged from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3456truth (talk • contribs) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• • You are writing this material based on your own synthesis of primary sources. This is original research (please see: Wikipedia:No original research. In addition, the "Israel Lobby Archive" is hardly a neutral or mainstream source (please see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Actually, each bit of information can be substantiated, and has been by AIPAC's own founder. If it is original research, it is Isaiah Kenen's. A reference can be placed in the piece, much more useful to informing readers than the previous content calling critics "anti-Semites".

Also, the Israel Lobby Archive is mainstream enough to be cited by the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/israeli_spies_our_constant_com.html

As a collection of primary source documents, calling the ILA "non-mainstream" (as if that were even a problem given the state of mainstream media) is not a credible exercise. You'd really need to discredit the FBI, GAO, IRS, and all the other government agencies that provided documents to the Israel Lobby Archive collection. Better to take down the National Security Archive or Jewish Virtual Library. Not really worth arguing about. 3456truth (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, please don't mark changes that effect the meaning of an article as minor. See Help:Minor edit. More significantly, you haven't explained why these changes belong in the lede of the article. Here is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) tells us: "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." The details of the organization's legal status 50 years ago seem completely insignificant to me. An "unsubstantiated allegation" is certainly not appropriate for the lede of an article. You're also removing sourced information from one side of the debate. Please see WP:NPOV. GabrielF (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC's origin belongs in the lede. The context of AIPAC as a front for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a critical part of its history. In your POV history may seem insignificant, but it is not. The allegation "Israeli intelligence at AIPAC" was part of an espionage investigation. It provides continuity to the idea of AIPAC as an Israeli front, which is the core theme of the organization to all new literature that uses real (often recently declassified) primary sources. Please don't remove this sourced material, including the founder's statement on the genesis of AIPAC lobbying for the Israeli government. 3456truth (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say: "the idea of AIPAC as an Israeli front, which is the core theme of the organization" - that's your opinion. You need to demonstrate that high-quality secondary sources see it this way. Even if you could demonstrate this, which I doubt, it still wouldn't excuse removing another side's opinion from the lede and it wouldn't justify clogging up the lede of the article with minor details - particularly when you are doing original synthesis by drawing conclusions from these primary sources (Kennan's book and the FBI document) without citing secondary sources that also draw those conclusions. GabrielF (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact, not opinion. AIPAC has been under constant investigation for operating as a foreign agent. It was the subject of an entire senate investigation. http://irmep.org/ILA/Senate/default.asp and several FBI investigations. If you want to edit Alan Dershowitz broad brush accusations of antisemitism into the intro, feel free. There is another book called "America's Defense Line" that can be cited with declassified 2008 Justice Department documents on AIPAC's emergence as well, but primary sources are all online.3456truth (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The ILA is certainly not mainstream. Have you seen its website? It has no address (only a post office box), and doesn't even list any of the people involved in it. Its analysis does not meet the requirements for Reliable Sources. But more to the point, the documents it claims to be posting are primary sources, which you are summarizing into your own analysis; That is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

If ILA is good enough for the Washington Post, it's good enough for wikipedia. As you may know, there is an organized effort to attack, smear, discredit, defund and defame any who write critically about the Israel lobby. If you don't believe that, carefully review http://irmep.org/ILA/AZC/default.asp Given that reality, primary source documents are not only acceptable, they are necessary in this case.3456truth (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research, even in cases where someone feels very strongly about a topic. Your summary and synthesis of primary sources is original research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I haven't submitted any original research. I'm not sure what you mean by "even in cases where someone feels very strongly about a topic." Who is that? Also, the entire intro is a synthesis of different bits of sourced material. It may not be known to many that AIPAC sprang from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but erasing that fact with various dubious edit claims isn't improving the entry.3456truth (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No Original Research

3456truth, you have submitted original research. And Yes, you seem to feel very strongly about this topic; you stated above that "Given that reality, primary source documents are not only acceptable, they are necessary in this". Unfortunately, Wikipedia's prohibition on Original Research does not include exemptions for certain realities or cases. But back to the main issue, you have taken primary sources and comprised your own summary based on your own interpretation. This is original research.

Again, please read Wikipedia:No original research more carefully; it states that:

• "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

More to the point, Wikipedia specifically states:

• "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.".

You are violating both of this rules by inserting the material in question.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I have not engaged in original research, I've entered some primary sources. This is allowable, the guidelines you reference specifically state "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."

I have offered links to a program that shows the reality of decades of heavy handed Zionist attacks on media outlets, academics, and others that publish critical information about the lobby. This has undermined free speech and diminished output in that domain, since nobody likes to be called an "anti-Semite" for criticizing (as the current intro also does). So that's not me feeling strongly, that's me putting in the key information that's still available.

But since we're now ascribing motive and emotions here (and not assuming good faith) this whole thing appears to boil down to, you don't want AIPAC's true origins from the Israeli government in the entry. I do. You say its irrelevant history. I say its vital for readers to know about. You selectively cite policy, I carefully source every reference.

All of the supporting information is also in the book "America's Defense Line." I could reference that, but then I supposed you'd then question whether that book, for years cited as a reference on this wiki page, is an acceptable source, rather than the real issue: the true origins of AIPAC. Using technicalities to fend off the truth. So sad.3456truth (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: No original research

You are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories from a unreliable website and then accusing those of want you to respect Wikipedia's polices of having alterior motives. I will advise you to review Talk page guidelines.

You claim that you are trying to demonstrate "the reality of decades of heavy handed Zionist attacks" and "the true origins of AIPAC." Aside from the fact that this is extremely POV, you evidently failed to read this: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or advocacy outlet that is used to advance political opinions or theories derived from primary sources. In Wikipedia, Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Regarding your claim that you are not inserting Original Research, I will point out that Wikipedia clearly states that:

• "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
• To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."

Finally, the rule against Original Research in Wikipedia is not simply a technicality: ""No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability." If you have a problem with this rule, I suggest you contact wikipedia and ask them to change this rule.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

This is all blather. If Alan Dershowitz of Harvard wrote a book called "Confessions of the Israel Lobby" which referenced the obvious online documents, that would be accepted. But linking to the source documents, and a book written to them are unacceptable. Key difference? Zionists don't like this information to be widely, publicly available. Sad, but true.Apollo Steel (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

April 26 2011

I continue to be concerned with these changes. If you want to add information on the formation of the organization and its initial request for tax-exempt status, using Kennan's book as a source I don't object, but it should in the body of the article and not in the lead paragraphs, which should be reserved for summary material. My preference would be for you to include more context - what was Kennan's stated motivation for forming the organization? What did he say he hoped to accomplish? I object strenuously to the addition of an "unsubstantiated allegation" to the lead section. This is not encyclopedic material. GabrielF (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation…would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby on Capitol Hill? There were other questions. Should I continue my registration as an agent of the Israel government? Was it appropriate for an embassy to lobby? Embassies talked to the State Department, and American voters talked to their congressmen."

Si Kenen, "All my causes"

It's now glaringly obvious why Kenen started AIPAC - to skirt the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. It's one of those "inconvenient truths."

Apollo Steel (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC's Founder worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Please do not vandalize the entry by deleting that key information.

http://irmep.org/ILA/Kenen/IOI/IOIreg/Registration/default.asp (AIPAC founder registration as a foreign agent) Apollo Steel (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's original research because it is a primary source. Wikipedia relies on Secondary sources.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

It is also in the book "America's Defense Line" so I'll reference that as well. But it is more powerful to see the signature of AIPAC;s founder as an employee of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Primary or secondary, it is sourced. So please stop editing history.

Apollo Steel (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonpartisan

It's important to mention in the lead that AIPAC is a nonpartisan lobbying group. I'll try to find sources to establish that, but maybe someone else who's more adept as such things can help out.—Biosketch (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, AIPAC is a partisan organization. It is a partisan of the Israeli government. Even a cursory review of the espionage investigations, career of its founder, and daily activity substantiates that. Apollo Steel (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the word partisan means in English in this context – it refers to being partial towards one or the other major parties in the American political system.—Biosketch (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition of PARTISAN

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisan 1

a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

I'd say that sums up pretty well AIPAC's partisanship toward the Israeli government, whatever PR spin they put on it. Apollo Steel (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

IRmep

On at least two separate occasions – WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy and WP:RSN#IRmep_.E2.80.93_Institute_for_Research:_Middle_East_Policy – this website an editor keeps adding content to the article from was objected to as a reliable source at WP:RSN, with not a single valid counterargument being voiced by anyone. Controversial information regarding AIPAC, and in particular potentially libelous allegations targeting living people, need to be grounded in high-quality sources or else they don't belong in the article, not even with attribution.—Biosketch (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the info could be sourced from the Jeff Stein article that was also cited and removed. It's not clear why the editor didn't use that source in the first place rather than the Institute for Research. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the source, but just an observation on the second entry at WP:RSN. It is a single comment by Biosketch himself - no input from any other editors. Dlv999 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The BLP facts have much more strict rules for sourcing then regular facts. --Shrike (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The first entry gives a clear picture that the source is unreliable--Shrike (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's no evidence at all that the Institute for Research qualifies as an RS but the Washington Post clearly does. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The WaPo link is to the Post's defunct "Spy Talk" blog rather than a regular WaPo article. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, such sources are generally viewed with more caution than regular articles because they don't necessarily have the same fact-checking process - in this case Jeff Stein's bio explicitly describes him as a columnist rather than a reporter.[4] There are additional issues, such as how much weight it is reasonable to give an incident that occurred 27 years ago and didn't result in charges. Stein describes the incident as "small potatoes" compared to the Pollard case and my reading of the FBI's summary of the case[5] doesn't leave me with the impression that this incident was all that noteworthy - if you think you've obtained a document illegally you don't go around offering to show it to members of Congress who are waiting to receive it through official channels. I would want to see more than one columnist, who doesn't seem to think this was that big a deal, before I included it. GabrielF (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The bio describes him as a "longtime investigative reporter specializing in U.S. intelligence, defense and foreign policy issues". I would say the person, the piece and the publisher qualify as RS. However, I agree that just having this source on its own doesn't make a compelling case for inclusion weight-wise. I wouldn't object to one sentence but it would be better to be able to demonstrate that there was more coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

IRmep hosts a government document repository. Therefore, if you take down the link to AIPAC's articles of incorporation, you're saying the DC Division of Corporations is not a reliable source because it's only available on the IRmep website. If you take down the finding that Morris Amitay harmed US national security, you're saying US State Department is not a reliable source because it's only available on the IRmep website. Likewise, if you eliminate information about the coorindated AIPAC/Israeli Ministry of Economics theft of US business data, you're saying US State Department is not a reliable source because it's only available on the IRmep website.

I think it would just be easier to cite ZDL as the reason for keeping the entry like a fact-free AIPAC press release. Zionist Don't Like. Of course, that's not (yet) a valid category.Apollo Steel (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

IRmep doesn't qualify as a reliable source here. It can't be used. Nor was its removal WP:VANDALISM. Regarding primary sources that IRmep may host, please see WP:PRIMARY. It describes the rules that govern their use. Your edit just doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy, that's all, and it has nothing to do with Zionism or whether editors are Zionists. If you keep restoring it, someone will report you, and you will either be warned or blocked. You need to find sources that qualify as WP:RS. You have the Washington Post. That is being discussed above. Also, please read Help:Minor edit to see when you can mark edits as minor. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To speak more generally to the topic: While I can't remember all the facts about IRMEP/Smith meetings with/supplying info to DOJ, it does seem that If we had transparent government at least some of this material would be up on DOJ website and that primary sources would be useable. Just because the media chooses to ignore certain things, doesn't mean they aren't encyclopedic from primary sources. (Including various new laws proposed in congress to censor the internet as much as SOPA did.) That's why we sometimes have to IGNORE ALL RULES. At least the Wash Post mention is a start. CarolMooreDC 05:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia is not an investigative journal nor is it a platform for conspiracy theories. If you want to cite the Washington Post article, that's fine but trying to turn this article into an display for IRMEP isn't acceptable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

It's probably good to identify which "You" one is talking about to get a proper reply, or at least avoid one from the wrong person. :-0 CarolMooreDC 02:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I should have been more specific: In this case, the "you" referred to Apollo Steel given the tone and content of his comments above and his recent additions to this article. (At the time, I was unaware that he has subsequently been banned from Wikipedia permanently).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Reminder: the issue here is can IRMEP's copies of government documents be used as sources. WP:Primary states: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. That is all that is done at this diff. Obviously it would be helpful if a secondary source had the info, and I do believe that can be found. But people do look at documents and we can be sure that if the documents at IRMEP were false there would be front page New York Times stories about it.

Also, I have to disagree with the first post in this section's characterization of what is found at WP:RSN. There certainly are mixed opinions in the detailed discussion here Nov 2011. There also is this from March 2012 which no one replied to and this from March 2012 which no one replied to. No replies does not mean others agree or disagree with you. CarolMooreDC 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can post documents on the internet and conduct their own analysis (and reach their own conclusions). The question here involves whether or not IRMEP's analysis of these documents (and given the language used on its website, its' lack of neutrality is evident) meets the requirements for Wikipedia. Wikipedia generally prefers mainstream sources - especially on controversial topics. Anyone can post their own work on the Internet (even from so-called "institutes" such as IRMEP that in reality only consist of one person, a website, an email address, and a post office box) - this is why Wikipedia frowns on sources such as these. If IRMEP is to be included, please take care not to turn this page into a clearing house for IRMEP's views and analysis.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Is this not the diff in question? It's just a link to a declassified govt document not available at another site. That's all I'm talking about here, not analysis. But as I said elsewhere, I think there needs to be a WP:RSN on IRMEP that is NOT basically saying "Is this crappy source any good?" Rather one that lists some indications that it is credible enough for at least linking to original documents. CarolMooreDC 00:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed my note directly above. In case anyone missed it, a RSN thread has been going on and most noninvolved editors -- having seen formidable list of WP:RS about or quoting or citing IRmep/Grant Smith have opined it's reliable to link to for original documents. Some believe uses for opinion/facts would have to be done on a case by case basis, i.e., at the very least if some WP:RS mention IRmep/Smith activity or quote them, it's obviously useable. As it happens there is quite a bit such info available online and I'll have it all together after I finish and put up the IRmep article. FYI CarolMooreDC 16:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Paul mentioned AIPAC

He said: "Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?" in his farewell speech. This should probably be added under criticism I imagine. 65.242.81.226 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Links

>> Israel and AIPAC clash on Syria strike Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Kassen

Why doesn't Michael Kassen have a Wikipedia page? As president of AIPAC, he should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetortilla (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Presidents

Would be great if someone could update the List of Presidents. It ends in 2008 right now. 41.83.38.155 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AIPAC/Mossad Connections

There is some new information out about how the founder of Mossad delivered early strategy initiatives to an AIPAC precursor organization. Is that an appropriate subject for this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo Steel (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Jeff Song (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If the information comes from a source that qualifies as reliable, then yes, it's relevant to the history of the organization and can be included. You can just go ahead and include information sourced from reliable sources per WP:BRD. If anyone disagrees they can remove it and leave a message here describing the policy based reason for its removal. The source must be reliable though. If you have any doubts about whether the source qualifies, don't add the information, post it here for discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

KHC

File:Klingon High Council Emblem.svg

I don't know about the Mossad, but I heard that AIPAC may be trying to influence the KHC, which could overrule Mossad, through bribing The Grand Nagus Zek himself.--Achim (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jane Harman

I didn't find anything - not even a link! - about the whole Jane Harman controversy. Any reason we shouldn't include it? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has large issues regarding it's non-neutral tone. Large swaths are devoted to what is little more than criticizing it, which is unacceptable. It needs to be severely pruned by one of the regular editors of the article. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A vague "I don't like it" is not sufficient justification for tagging an article with a pov tag. You should be giving some specific examples within the article's content that you think need changes, so that any alleged problems can be addressed in order for the tag to be eventually removed. I have deleted the npov tag given the lack of justification for its placement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fund raising for candidates

where in the source is there support for " helps candidates raise money through PACs it has established and by other indirect means." ? Epson Salts (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• "and a major beneficiary of AIPAC-related funding,"
• "The lobby does not raise funds directly. Its members do, and the amount of money they channel to political candidates is difficult to track."
• "AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs. By the end of the decade, there were dozens. Most had generic-sounding names, like Heartland Political Action Committee, and they formed a loose constellation around AIPAC. Though there was no formal relationship, in many cases the leader was an AIPAC member, and as the PACs raised funds they looked to the broader organization for direction."
• "Dine estimated that in the eighties and nineties contributions from AIPAC members often constituted roughly ten to fifteen per cent of a typical congressional campaign budget. AIPAC provided lavish trips to Israel for legislators and other opinion-makers."
• Could be more but that was enough for me to put it back, though I'm sure you must have read the entire thing twice to make sure you were correct. It's nice to see an account pass 30/500 just to come edit here. Sepsis II (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that quite enough to support the claim. Specifically, items #2& #4 refer to AIPAC members as individuals. As I wrote the first time these items were used (#2), members may do many things as individuals, but that does not mean that AIPAC is directing actions. As an example exmapel, in addition to raising funds, I am sure many AIPAC members have their male children circumcised, but I would find a claim that it is AIPAC directing them to do so quite ludicrous. Item #3 says AIPAc formed PACs, but also states explicitly that " there was no formal relationship", and again references what individual PAC members , who are also AIPAC member may have done. I will be removing that statement unless it is rephrased to what is actually supported by this source. Epson Salts (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad this is happening on the talk page and not via an edit war.

1) "PACs it has established" is directly supported by the article reporting: "AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs." I'll correct the existing language to include the word "helped."

2) "indirect means" This was all over the article. For instance:

• "The lobby does not raise funds directly. Its members do..."
• "a major beneficiary of AIPAC-related funding"
• "Though there was no formal relationship, in many cases the leader was an AIPAC member, and as the PACs raised funds they looked to the broader organization for direction."
• "Members’ contributions were often bundled. 'AIPAC will select some dentist in Boise, say, to be the bundler,' a former longtime AIPAC member said. 'They tell people in New York and other cities to send their five-thousand-dollar checks to him..."

There are, of course, more such examples. You might disagree with the claim that AIPAC is directing the contributions, but that's in fact what's in the source. Rather than remove statements that you disagree with, I recommend that you try to suggest language that better fits the source in cases where the Wikipedia article is inaccurate as to what's in the source material.PPX (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What I actually disagree with is your claim that "AIPAC is directing the contributions" is in the source. The source describes the actions of individuals, who are AIPAC members, who on occasion, it claims, have asked AIPAC for guidance. The statement as is currently in the article reverses that relationship, and has AIPAC directing the actions of those individuals. That does not have any support in the article , as far as i can see. To clarify the distinction I am making here- many politicians and leaders have advisors, on a wide range of topics. So it would be fair to say, for example,based on this article - vhttp://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.721158 - that Bernie Sanders has sought the guidance of Zogby on foreign the DNC platform, but it would not be ok to use the same source to say that Zogby directs the DNC platform. Epson Salts (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is splitting hairs. If PAC's who were established by AIPAC and look to AIPAC for direction raise funds for candidates, that's pretty much AIPAC raising money. But, I went ahead and made an edit to try to account for this flag. PPX (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that this can be described as AIPAC raising money, but I think your latest edit is good enough. Epson Salts (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924185946/http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0821.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0821.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "remove uncited / self-cited & unduly promotional content". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Unduly self-serving content is not covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. In addition, one of the two paras was not cited at all. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Covering AIPAC's positions, per AIPAC, attributed to them does not seem that problematic - we do so elsewhere, and it does not seem promotional. I'm also fairly certain someone external to AIPAC covered AIPAC's positions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

In the first sentence of this article, remove the reference to the Executive branch. AIPAC does not lobby the Executive branch; it only lobbies Congress. None of the references included provide any evidence to the contrary. In fact, the first sentence of the "Aims, activities, successes" subsection states that AIPAC lobbies Congress, but does not discuss the Executive branch at all. DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: AIPAC's "What We've Accomplished" page on their own website claims that they work with "leaders in the executive branch". I've cited this in the article.​ — Newslinger talk 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Change "The current President of AIPAC is Lillian Pincus." to "The current President of AIPAC is Mort Fridman." Lillian Pinkus serves as Chair of the Board of Directors. This is correct in the sidebar, but incorrect in the opening paragraph of the page.

In the List of Presidents section, the following names and dates should be added: Mort Fridman (2018-present), New Jersey Lillian Pinkus (2016-2018), Dallas Robert Cohen (2014-2016), New York Michael Kassen (2012-2014), Connecticut Lee Rosenberg (2010-2012), Chicago 50.207.208.142 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source in the infobox is from 2014, yet it is being used to support the 2018 president. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

See sources referring to Lillian Pinkus as Chairman of the Board and Mort Fridman as President (as of March 2018): 50.207.208.142 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Listing of supporters in lede?

Seems quite WP:UNDUE to include a list of specific supporters--e.g. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris--in the lede. Would editors oppose trimming that to simply say that the organization has bipartisan support from leaders in both parties? Harris and Biden have made a few token positive comments about AIPAC, doesn't really seem justified to include so prominently in the lede, although the body is fine. Thoughts?ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I think that the names listed are representative, and well support the contention that the group has bipartisan support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism - Suppressed Al-Jazeera Documentary

In 2017, a documentary was produced by Al-Jazeera in which a British operative went undercover in Washington DC and secretly recorded audio and video describing how AIPAC and the Israeli government work with US news organizations to pressure politicians to support Pro-Israel causes (support: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-parts-of-censored-al-jazeera-documentary-on-pro-israeli-lobby-leaked-1.6432835; https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-amateur-hour-with-bds-the-real-scandal-in-al-jazeera-s-israeli-lobby-investigation-1.6589884; https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/; https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/al-jazeera-investigation-us-israel-lobbying-not-published-why-qatar-a8257191.html). This documentary was suppressed by the Qatari government under Israeli pressure, citing "National Security" (support: https://electronicintifada.net/content/national-security-cited-reason-al-jazeera-nixed-israel-lobby-film/24566). David Ochs, the founder of HaLev, which finances students' attendance to AIPAC's annual conference, is on video saying, "“Congressmen and senators don’t do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money" (support: https://theintercept.com/2019/02/11/ilhan-omar-israel-lobby-documentary/). Other goals described are attacking Pro-Palestinian politicians in the UK.

I think this information is important and should be included in AIPAC's Wikipedia page under the Controversy section. Randall.ellis (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Could the category Category:Jewish lobbying please be added to the article? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this article is already in that category, because it is sorted to Category:American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is a subcategory of Category:Jewish lobbying. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

History of AIPAC is tied to both the history of Israel and the history of Zionism in America

As noted in the article, AIPAC started in 1953 -- during the McCarthy-era and HUAC anti-communist political rhetoric.

It was also a time when the majority of American Jews did not support Israel and were not Zionists. Many, especially Orthodox Jews, were anti-Zionist at the time. Both the world Zionist movement and the State of Israel were dominated by socialist parties that were members of the Second International. Needless to say, supporting Israel at that time opened one to chargtes of being a communist, a socialist, a "red", etc. -- and indeed socialist Zionism was the dominant wing of the Zionist movement.

This was also a time when Israel's diplomatic corps was weak, understaffed and under-resourced.

AIPAC was founded to convince Jews and politicians to support the new state and, perhaps more importantly, NOT to militarily, economically and diplomatically support the oil kingdoms/sheikdoms that were, at the time, Israel's "enemies".

And AIPAC was for a long time a rather weak and poorly funded organization and lobbying group not widely supported by American Jewry. It supported Israel when it joined forces with England and France when they tried to seize the Suez Canal in 1956 -- a move opposed by the US government. It unsuccessfully lobbied for US arms sales to Israel. When the 1967 war began, Israel's weapons and planes came from France and Britain -- not the US.

Without this understanding of the origins of AIPAC it is impossible to understand the dramatic shifts that have taken place in this organization and its bases of support.

1967 was a turning point because all of a sudden Israel became a partner with the Viet Nam embroiled US military-industrial complex.

Just as the NRA can be seen as a lobby group for small arms manufacturers -- and not gun-owners -- so, too, can AIPAC be seen to have become a lobby for large arms and defense contractors -- and for neither American Jewry nor the State of Israel (which by this time had a strong diplomatic corps).

FormerZionistLeader (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

"Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence." [9]

I propose a piece be added at the end of this "though this is disputed by supporters" with sources here https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/no-one-is-afraid-of-aipac https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/chuck-schumer-at-aipac-a-jew-who-lobbies-for-israel-is-no-less-american-584662.

I'm not sure why this doesn't go into its criticism section as that header either.

Also, "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch[3] of the United States. The current president of AIPAC is Betsy Berns Korn.[4]"

Flows better as

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a group that advocates for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch[3] of the United States. The current president of AIPAC is Betsy Berns Korn.[4]

Technically it doesn't spend cash, and this still makes it clear it lobbies, just like Jstreet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:706A:745E:E6DD:7DDA (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

The article says that Mayer Mitchell was a scrap metal dealer in Mobile, Alabama when, in fact, he was a real estate developer. 2601:42:180:1DC0:64E6:5C44:8171:1CD0 (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The year Mitchell was president is contradicted by the obit I found. It looks like the presidents section was copied from this list at some point. Probably worth checking that list more thoroughly. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Riddled with errors, probably? Moving here for now:

List of presidents

• Robert Asher, 1962–1964, a lighting-fixtures dealer in Chicago
• Larry Weinberg, 1976-1982, a real-estate broker in Los Angeles (and a former owner of the Portland Trail Blazers)
• Edward Levy, Jr., ?-1988-?, a building-supplies executive in Detroit
• Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, 1990-1992, a real estate developer in Mobile, Alabama
• David Steiner, ?-1992, New Jersey real estate developer
• Steven Grossman, 1992-1996, communications executive and Democratic Party chairman
• Melvin Dow, 1996-?, a Houston attorney
• Lonny Kaplan, 1998-2000, New Jersey insurance executive
• Tim Wuliger, ?-2001-?, Cleveland investor
• Amy Friedkin, 2002–2004, San Francisco, active in grassroots Jewish organisations.
• Bernice Manocherian, 2004-2006
• Howard Friedman, 2006–2010
• Lillian Pinkus, 2016-?
• Betsy Berns Korn, 2020–present, former AIPAC vice president and former NFL employee

AIPAC presidents

President	Date range	Short bio
Robert Asher	1962-1964	Lighting-fixtures dealer in Chicago
Larry Weinberg	1976-1982	Real-estate broker in Los Angeles and a former owner of the Portland Trail Blazers
Edward Levy, Jr.	Ended 1988	Building-supplies executive in Detroit
Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell	1990-1992	Real estate developer in Mobile, Alabama
David Steiner	Ended 1992
Steven Grossman	1992-1996	communications executive and Democratic Party chairman
Melvin Dow	Started 1996	Houston attorney
Lonny Kaplan	1998-2000	New Jersey insurance executive
Tim Wuliger	Ended 2001	Cleveland investor
Amy Friedkin	2002–2004	San Francisco, active in grassroots Jewish organisations.
Bernice Manocherian	2004-2006
Howard Friedman	2006–2010
Lillian Pinkus	starting 2016
Betsy Berns Korn	2020-present	former AIPAC vice president and former NFL employee

References

Retiring Democratic Lawmaker: When AIPAC Told Us to Jump, the Party Used to Ask ‘How High?’

Good external link? --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:54A4:7852:D16C:23C3 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably better if integrated into the article than if used as en external link. Depending on the article contents, I would certainly support inclusion of some details.

I don't have Haaretz premium access, so I can't do that myself, though I would if I had access to the article. Unfortunately you can't add it to the article because this page is protected due to its part in the I/P conflict area--you'd need 30 days and 500 edits on your account. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 Feb 2022

Typo fix but I don't have extended edit rights. "Mear" cite note misspells the author's name, please change Mearshimer to Mearsheimer. Also link appears to be broken.

<ref name=Mear>{{cite journal
  | first = Mearshimer
  | last = John
  |author2=Walt, Stephen
  | title = The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
  | publisher = Harvard University
  | date = March 2006
  | url = http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
  }}
</ref>

Wacketeer (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The dead link was to a working paper (which which seems to have circulated widely). The author's web page pointed to a free published version in the London Review of Books, so I used that and updated the block quote to match the slightly-changed wording of the published version. And, of course, I fixed the spelling and the name-flip in the citation. Thank you! -- M.boli (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

typo in lead

In the last line of the lead, "well as high-ranking Republicans" should be "as well as high-ranking Republicans"

2A02:A467:F771:1:2597:4A1D:A0B9:8AB7 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ji11720 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Hello,

I'm a sysop of the french Wiktionnary ("Wiktionnaire")

I will create an article "AIPAC" in this wiktionnary and I wish make an illustration with the logo.

So can I have the right to edit this page.

Thanks,

Cordialy, Basnormand (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If what you want is the logo, it is [[File:AIPAC_logo.svg]] in Wikimedia -- M.boli (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC). -- 14:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Hello, can we please request that the protestors image on the "Criticism" section. Please see screen shot attached to reference the image on the right we would like removed. Thanks you IncognitoEm (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why, and who is we? nableezy - 16:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Intro

The last sentence of the intro includes: "... former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris (both of whom ran for President in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary)..." Can this be updated to reflect the fact that they won the Presidency and Vice Presidency, respectively? Suggest: "...Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both of whom ran for President in 2020 and were elected as President and Vice President, respectively..." Editor of Note (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, without becoming too cumbersome. Also I replaced the reference, which did not support the text. -- M.boli (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Correction to Mistake: While having endorsed over 100 Republican members of Congress who had voted against certifying Joe Biden's election

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

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)

• Comment: The relevant guideline is at MOS:ACROTITLE. SilverLocust 💬 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing sentence phrasing

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

"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

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)

Zionism in lead sentence

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)

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)

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

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)

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

  @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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)