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:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
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. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
AIPAC is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
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
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
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)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
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)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
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)reply