![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I was looking at the tag at the top of the article about how "This article may contain excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples" and I am inclined to agree. Before removing the least relevant examples, I wanted to make my intentions known. The ones I plan on removing include:
If anyone has any problems with removing any of the above, I am happy to reconsider. -- GHcool ( talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
GHcool, please explain and justify your proposed removals, and obtain agreement, before continuing with your serial removals. It's not sufficient to state "this is irrelevant", or to offer your own analysis of what is relevant. I have restored the passages you removed without sufficient explanation, and I urge you to discuss this properly, not to present other editors with an ultimatum over a holiday period. RolandR ( talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not Abbas' movement. The lead section should not give undue weight to him and should certainly not be written in a journalistic style by having an extended quote by him. BenjaminHold ( talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I wrote several Israeli companies due to the paragraph in the source which read: "The Danish bank had already decided to pull its investments from Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus due to their involvement in settlements construction." It's your choice Hyperion whether to list them individually or write several or three. Sepsis II ( talk) 00:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the removal of the work of these two clearly notable figures. Neither of the given reasons, because they are BDS supporters or because they were published by EI are close to being acceptable. Sepsis II ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As an unregistered user I can not fix a misspelling I have found in the "Methods" section. In the sentence, "Sanctions are described as 'an essential part of demonstrating disapproval for a countries actions'", countries should be spelled country's, as it is in the source of the quote. 212.139.241.163 ( talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I added paragraphs documenting the anti-Semitic acts of BDS supporters at the aforementioned universities.
Although both incidents were sourced, the paragraphs were removed by
RolandR on the specious grounds that "These are not 'documented incidents', but anecdotes in unreliable sources."
The source for the incident at
Michigan State University is a factual news report, not an opinion piece reported in the
The Washington Free Beacon which is no less a reliable source than for example
The Electronic Intifada described by Wikipedia as a "pro-Palestinian" site "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin its editors believe exists in mainstream media accounts", which despite its self described bias, is sited as a reliable source on this page.
The source given for the
University of the Witwatersrand incident is the
Wits Vuvuzela the official student newspaper of the University. The incident was also reported in South African mainstream newspapers such as the
Mail & Guardian owned by the
Guardian Media Group of London.
It appears therefore that
RolandR has no valid reason for declaring that these news reports are "anecdotes in unreliable sources".
Clivel 0 (
talk)
19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
>> On Scarlett Johansson and 'Blood Bubbles'
>> Scarlett Johansson defends SodaStream amid criticism
>> Is 'Brand Israel' under threat? *
>> US mulls bill punishing Israel boycotters (
Lihaas (
talk)
15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
Oxfam Has Legally Problematic Ties to Terrorist Group PFLP >>
Jimmy Carter says BDS goes too far
Clivel 0 (
talk)
22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Your unexplained removal of content, violation of 1RR, purposeful misrepresention of sources, and deletion of The Electronic Intifada sources are unacceptable. If you continue in any such fashion I will have to ask that you be banned from IP articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit - 17:48 March 16 I removed the mention of CUPE's boycott because there was no mention of it in the source cited [2]. Sepsis II did provide a link to this article ( CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel) but he should have also cited a secondary source to support its inclusion.
What Sepsis II clearly didn't notice (or deliberately ignored) was that I subsequently replaced the information on CUPE with this edit [3] with more reliable sources (in my humble opinion). Rather then simply citing an extremely POV website (which is hardly a reliable source), I instead cited two mainstream sources [4] and [5]. I hardly feel this is an violation of Wikipedia rules (mainstream sources are preferred, rather than advocacy websites like the Electronic Intifada, which Sepsis II wants to cited almost everything from).
With regards to this edit, [6], it is actually the same one I cited above - yes I removed the reference to the Electronic Intifada because I felt that mainstream sources (rather than an advocacy site) were more suitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, Sepsis II is obsessed with citing EI, and can't accept that others would rather cite mainstream sources instead.
Regarding Sepsis II claim that I "purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source," this is simply false. I used the quote "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" because that was the exact wording of a quote attributed to CUPE used in this article [7] on Canada.com. For Sepsis II to claim I purposeful misrepresented this information is utter nonsense - What Sepsis II seems to be claiming is that Canada.com purposefully misrepresented CUPE (he has determined this through his original research). If Sepsis II wants to contact Canada.com and accuse them of misrepresenting CUPE, he is welcome too, but accusing me of "purposefully misrepresentation" by citing a mainstream source (as opposed to his advocacy site) is either incredibly disingenuous or the result of a lack serious lack of judgment.
On the same note, I don't see how this can be a 1RR violation: I didn't remove any information twice - Sepsis II original edit [8] didn't even include the EI source (it included no sources, except for one which doesn't mention CUPE at all). In addition, this edit did not include Sepsis II's original quote from EI - he only added it later. In my second edit (as I already stated above) [9] I removed the EI source and substituted these [10] and [11], and cited a direct quote from CUPE that was included in the Canada.com article (admittedly I did reword Sepsis II's quote, but since this quote was not included in his first edit, it is not a 1RR violation). In other words, this is not a revert, but rather an edit made in good faith by citing two mainstream sources that I felt were more reliable than an advocacy site. I did not remove any information twice.
Finally, I did do a mass removal of information here February 3 because I felt that the language used was not POV and because some of the sources cited were not RS. What Sepsis II continently forgot to mention is that during the next 36 hours, I subsequent reinserted most of this information using NPOV language (for example, see edits [12] and [13]. For Sepsis II to make this accusation without citing the fact that I almost immediately reinserted most of this information using NPOV language is once again, either very disingenuous or indicates a lack of judgment.
Finally, I am aware of ARBPIA I make every effort to follow it (although I acknowledge that there are times that I need to be more careful).
I'm not sure why Sepsis II is making this false accusations. Based on his edits in this and similar articles, he clearly likes to parrot the EI and cannot the handle the fact that others may try to suggest alternate sources that are not advocacy sites. However, I take issue with all of Sepsis II's accusations, and his own misrepresentation of my edits and my intentions - whether this is the result of bad faith, laziness or simple incompetence on his part, I can only speculate.
In any event, if I have run afoul with Wikipedia's rules, please let me know - but for Sepsis II to selectively cite my edits to support his accusations, and to accuse me of "purposefully misrepresent[ing]" this material when I simply quoted a mainstream source (which in turn, quoted the subject) is both laughable and fallacious.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
Update: With regards to Sepsis II's allegation that I (by quoting a Canada.com article) was engaged in a plot to "purposefully misrepresent" CUPE's statement regarding its boycott of Israel (by using the quote that CUPE has voted to join the BDS movement "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination", it turns out that CUPE uses this wording itself on its website CUPE Ontario's Resolution 50, and that this was the wording quoted by Canada.com. I guess the source was right after all - granted, this wording is from the introduction to this document, rather than from the actual resolution itself. It's also interesting to note that this document is currently available on the CUPE website, while Sepsis II could only cite an archived page.
Although this section, if not the whole article, sorely needs reorganisation I have undone Engelo's changes for the following reasons:
So, it would seem that instead of trying to improve the article, Engelo's changes actually had the effect of watering down claims of antisemitism while at the same time strengthening and highlighting counter-claims. Clivel 0 ( talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This reorganization is very problematic and now reads as a very ideologically slanted piece, especially regarding the American Studies Association. Before, there were at least some sentences after the baseless charges against the ASA that undercut and complicated the baseless allegations. Now that you end with several repetitions of the baseless allegations, you problematically reinforce them, thus repeating the attempted smear campaign. Several authors now have written about how those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel whatsoever misrepresented the NYT quote in which Marez said "we have to start somewhere" and that the US has a particular responsibility because Israel is the largest recipient of US aid and that the ASA was responding to a call from Palestinian civil society that others around the world are also answering. The attack press cut the long quote back to 5 words, pretending that those 5 words were all that was said. In fact, every single article quoted here that implies the quote is anti-semitic are basing that charge on the truncated, incomplete quote that was manufactured by the attack press. While it is in fact true that we have to start somewhere in any struggle, the attack strategy of pretending those 5 words were all that was said was used again and again by those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel to give the false impression that no other reasons were given. So you also give the wrong impression when you reproduce those charges without giving space for the counter-claims and ignore the numerous pieces out now pointing out that this was a smear campaign. This Wikipedia entry in fact now participates in that smear campaign. The comments of Roderick Ferguson and Jodi Melamed are apposite here: "In order to undermine the exercise of boycott as a form of witness, those who attack the ASA boycott must exclude Palestinian oppression from the debate as meaningless to academic freedom. This is the point our president, Curtis Marez, was making when he noted recently that the university presidents’ denunciation of the ASA has been silent regarding Israel’s abuses of Palestinian academics and Palestinian human rights in general. While he calls upon them to acknowledge such abuses, not to acknowledge them is the whole point for those who seek to narrow the field of permissible discussion about Israel/Palestine at U.S. universities. Having broken that taboo by questioning the legitimacy of Israeli occupation, the ASA leadership must now also be made excludable, by being painted as irrational, freedom-hating extremists and through baseless accusations of anti-Semitism." http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/academic-freedom-violence.html. Lloyd7777777 ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Clivel 0 I undid your edits on the Butler reply. You changed it in a way that does not reflect the crux of the argument. If you have issues with the current formulation, let's talk about it here before changing. Thanks Engelo ( talk) 10:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We need a new section that gives the reasons why BDS is a good idea and why it is not. Just arguments for and against instead of a mess of quotes from various sources. For arguments could include: (1) Its objectives are to advance human rights issues (2) Educational/awareness purposes, (3) It has a good chance to succeed, e.g., it proved itself with in SA Apartheid, (4) It fosters debate, (5) It is a non-violent form of resistance to oppression, (6) Boycotting Israeli academic institutions is good because they are part of the oppressive system (7) It is fundamentally democratic in the sense that every individual and every organization can decide whether to boycott or not by "voting with their wallets", as it were, in a bottom-up instead of a top-down process.
I made several clean up edits though of course they get reverted by a sock. Anyways, I found much of the text in the criticism section to not be appropriate. As'ad AbuKhalil was not criticizing BDS, Madonna never criticized BDS, it's questionable to say if Abbas criticized BDS (he supports a boycott of settlements, but not one of Israel), the Cape Town Opera never criticized BDS, NGO monitor's part only say that they do criticize BDS (surprise!) but of course this article is not a list of organizations which do criticize BDS, but what the criticism actually is, "through inflammatory incitement" is quite sensational, POV, and unnecessary, the source did not say Israeli presence but said Israeli occupation and settlements, and lastly Mahmoud Abbas is the President of Palestine, has been for awhile, just because some sources actively delegitimize Palestine doesn't mean we should. Sepsis II ( talk) 04:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My recent removal/changes to this article included:
Engelo does agree with my changes and asked that I bring this to the talk page. I welcome any comments.(
Hyperionsteel (
talk)
13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
(side note: As for your claim that "this is just one of several articles about the ASA and spurious charges", I can cite a lot of articles that take exactly the opposite opinion - shall I start adding those as well?).
Bill Gates nor anyone affiliated with Bill Gates said he sold stocks because of any pressure. It was only the word of pro-Palestinian groups. Not only that, Israel is one of Microsoft's most important countries, and has just in recent days invested even more into Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.597003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Near the lead, there is a "critics say..." type claim regarding a link between BDS and the delegitimization of Israel. 2 of the 3 sources did not even mention BDS nor was BDS even part of the story at all. The 3rd takes this weasel claim to anot her level, again saying "critics say..." but it did feature a quote that made the connection, so I left it despite the fact that most of the rest of the article essentially says that's an extremely weak claim.
// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.83.51 ( talk) 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the Achievements section supposed to list any boycott of Israel? Or just those initiated or affiliated with the BDS movement? Because right now it is the former - a quick glance at the listed boycotts and their references shows that only about five (!!!) out of the fifteen or so examples mention "BDS" or "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" or the global campaign. I realize the conflict is an extremely contentious issue, so I wasn't feeling particularly bold. Otherwise I would have pruned the section and kept only those where a connection with the BDS movement is sourced. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 06:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The number of pictures in this article is increasing rapidly. I removed one picture of Neturei Karta Jews opposing Israel because there are already two similar pictures in the article.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC))
I strongly suggest Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:Indiscriminate - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."
I will also strongly suggest that Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...[and] should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view."
I've removed the paragraph on NYACT sourced entirely from a single article in MondoWeiss. This group has not been cited by any mainstream media source and including it here is WP:UNDUE.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
There are numerous violations of Wikipedia's policy on external links (see: WP:EXT: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." These will be removed as well.
There are huge portions of this material that are sourced solely from websites such as Jewish Voice for Peace's own website, the Mondoweiss blog, BoycottIsrael.info, jewssayno.wordpress.com, jews4big.wordpress.com, jewishvoiceandopinion.com, etc., These are not WP:RS for Wikipedia. Citing material from these websites likely also violates WP:Promotion. This material will be removed as well.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
Ok. I've removed the material that explicitly violates Wikipedia's guidelines. I may make further changes once I have more time to devote to this.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
Hyperionsteel, you make three brief claims in support of your deletion of an entire section I added. Those claims are as follows: “Removing Original research, unsourced information, and information taken from non-RS sources. (the BDS movement's website is certainly not a RS).”
The information I published cannot be defined as original research according to the Wikipedia guidelines because every source is cited inline or hyperlinked to a relevant and reliable website or document containing information or direct quotes used in my addition to the page. For further information see: Wikipedia guidelines on Original Research (OR): The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. -you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented -all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source -an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged -The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.
Likewise, your claim of unsourced information is also incorrect. All information in the portion of text I posted is both researched and accurately sourced and cited. Furthermore, you will find that all information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided.
Lastly, I would like to address your apprehension regarding information you claim to be taken from a non-RS source, bdsmovement.net. I can understand concern for the neutrality of such a source and have therefore replaced one of the bdsmovement.net sources with a more RS source. As for the second bdsmovement.net citation, I cannot find another source for the “Economic Costs of the Occupation” document, however, it is not actually published or written by bdsmovement.net, but by Alternative Information Center, and simply re-posted on the bdsmovement webpage. I therefore see no need to delete the source, and believe that the Wikipedia Guidelines on Reliable Sources (RS) do substantiate my claim on the reliability of my sources (including bdsmovement.net): “Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”
And, “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.” I believe that this point on presenting significant minority views fully supports my reasons for posting this portion of text in the first place, considering that the only mention of Jewish or Israeli perspective on BDS on the current page is in opposition to the movement. This leaves out a growing and important group of Jews and Israelis who publicly and vocally support the BDS movement -voices which are clearly verified in the references included in the article. Intentional omission of these voices is thus a serious violation of Wikipedia’s NPOV principle
Regardless of the two bdsmovement.net sources, there is no valid justification as to why the rest of the section should be deleted. Your claim of unsourced information is entirely incorrect, as all of the information in the portion of text is well-researched and accurately sourced and cited. All information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided. If this is found to be false, please direct me to any uncited or unsourced text.
I have thus re-posted my text to the page, albeit with the modified source in place of bdsmovement.net. I am open to modifications of the text if they are necessary and justifiable.
In future please ensure that all deletions of material are only carried out in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Mau Ro ( talk) 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this opinion by a Pennsylvanian Senator belongs here. Here is the material that was removed: "Pennsylvanian State Representative Anthony Hardy Williams has called the BDS movement "racist". [1] ShulMaven ( talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"BDS is often criticized as being anti-Semitic" should be re-inserted in the article where it was removed. It is relevant and easily sourced.
NOTE: USER: Hyperionsteel has been removing content that does not fit their anti-Israeli bias. Wikipedia should not be used as a megaphone by this user to disseminate propaganda. Wikipedia needs input from all reliable sources and walks of life in order to remain independant. Thank you.-- Corpuskrusty ( talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Corpuskrusty Corpuskrusty ( talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I was looking at the tag at the top of the article about how "This article may contain excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples" and I am inclined to agree. Before removing the least relevant examples, I wanted to make my intentions known. The ones I plan on removing include:
If anyone has any problems with removing any of the above, I am happy to reconsider. -- GHcool ( talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
GHcool, please explain and justify your proposed removals, and obtain agreement, before continuing with your serial removals. It's not sufficient to state "this is irrelevant", or to offer your own analysis of what is relevant. I have restored the passages you removed without sufficient explanation, and I urge you to discuss this properly, not to present other editors with an ultimatum over a holiday period. RolandR ( talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not Abbas' movement. The lead section should not give undue weight to him and should certainly not be written in a journalistic style by having an extended quote by him. BenjaminHold ( talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I wrote several Israeli companies due to the paragraph in the source which read: "The Danish bank had already decided to pull its investments from Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus due to their involvement in settlements construction." It's your choice Hyperion whether to list them individually or write several or three. Sepsis II ( talk) 00:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the removal of the work of these two clearly notable figures. Neither of the given reasons, because they are BDS supporters or because they were published by EI are close to being acceptable. Sepsis II ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As an unregistered user I can not fix a misspelling I have found in the "Methods" section. In the sentence, "Sanctions are described as 'an essential part of demonstrating disapproval for a countries actions'", countries should be spelled country's, as it is in the source of the quote. 212.139.241.163 ( talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I added paragraphs documenting the anti-Semitic acts of BDS supporters at the aforementioned universities.
Although both incidents were sourced, the paragraphs were removed by
RolandR on the specious grounds that "These are not 'documented incidents', but anecdotes in unreliable sources."
The source for the incident at
Michigan State University is a factual news report, not an opinion piece reported in the
The Washington Free Beacon which is no less a reliable source than for example
The Electronic Intifada described by Wikipedia as a "pro-Palestinian" site "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin its editors believe exists in mainstream media accounts", which despite its self described bias, is sited as a reliable source on this page.
The source given for the
University of the Witwatersrand incident is the
Wits Vuvuzela the official student newspaper of the University. The incident was also reported in South African mainstream newspapers such as the
Mail & Guardian owned by the
Guardian Media Group of London.
It appears therefore that
RolandR has no valid reason for declaring that these news reports are "anecdotes in unreliable sources".
Clivel 0 (
talk)
19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
>> On Scarlett Johansson and 'Blood Bubbles'
>> Scarlett Johansson defends SodaStream amid criticism
>> Is 'Brand Israel' under threat? *
>> US mulls bill punishing Israel boycotters (
Lihaas (
talk)
15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
Oxfam Has Legally Problematic Ties to Terrorist Group PFLP >>
Jimmy Carter says BDS goes too far
Clivel 0 (
talk)
22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Your unexplained removal of content, violation of 1RR, purposeful misrepresention of sources, and deletion of The Electronic Intifada sources are unacceptable. If you continue in any such fashion I will have to ask that you be banned from IP articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit - 17:48 March 16 I removed the mention of CUPE's boycott because there was no mention of it in the source cited [2]. Sepsis II did provide a link to this article ( CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel) but he should have also cited a secondary source to support its inclusion.
What Sepsis II clearly didn't notice (or deliberately ignored) was that I subsequently replaced the information on CUPE with this edit [3] with more reliable sources (in my humble opinion). Rather then simply citing an extremely POV website (which is hardly a reliable source), I instead cited two mainstream sources [4] and [5]. I hardly feel this is an violation of Wikipedia rules (mainstream sources are preferred, rather than advocacy websites like the Electronic Intifada, which Sepsis II wants to cited almost everything from).
With regards to this edit, [6], it is actually the same one I cited above - yes I removed the reference to the Electronic Intifada because I felt that mainstream sources (rather than an advocacy site) were more suitable for Wikipedia. Clearly, Sepsis II is obsessed with citing EI, and can't accept that others would rather cite mainstream sources instead.
Regarding Sepsis II claim that I "purposeful misrepresentation and deletion of RS due to personal dislike of source," this is simply false. I used the quote "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination" because that was the exact wording of a quote attributed to CUPE used in this article [7] on Canada.com. For Sepsis II to claim I purposeful misrepresented this information is utter nonsense - What Sepsis II seems to be claiming is that Canada.com purposefully misrepresented CUPE (he has determined this through his original research). If Sepsis II wants to contact Canada.com and accuse them of misrepresenting CUPE, he is welcome too, but accusing me of "purposefully misrepresentation" by citing a mainstream source (as opposed to his advocacy site) is either incredibly disingenuous or the result of a lack serious lack of judgment.
On the same note, I don't see how this can be a 1RR violation: I didn't remove any information twice - Sepsis II original edit [8] didn't even include the EI source (it included no sources, except for one which doesn't mention CUPE at all). In addition, this edit did not include Sepsis II's original quote from EI - he only added it later. In my second edit (as I already stated above) [9] I removed the EI source and substituted these [10] and [11], and cited a direct quote from CUPE that was included in the Canada.com article (admittedly I did reword Sepsis II's quote, but since this quote was not included in his first edit, it is not a 1RR violation). In other words, this is not a revert, but rather an edit made in good faith by citing two mainstream sources that I felt were more reliable than an advocacy site. I did not remove any information twice.
Finally, I did do a mass removal of information here February 3 because I felt that the language used was not POV and because some of the sources cited were not RS. What Sepsis II continently forgot to mention is that during the next 36 hours, I subsequent reinserted most of this information using NPOV language (for example, see edits [12] and [13]. For Sepsis II to make this accusation without citing the fact that I almost immediately reinserted most of this information using NPOV language is once again, either very disingenuous or indicates a lack of judgment.
Finally, I am aware of ARBPIA I make every effort to follow it (although I acknowledge that there are times that I need to be more careful).
I'm not sure why Sepsis II is making this false accusations. Based on his edits in this and similar articles, he clearly likes to parrot the EI and cannot the handle the fact that others may try to suggest alternate sources that are not advocacy sites. However, I take issue with all of Sepsis II's accusations, and his own misrepresentation of my edits and my intentions - whether this is the result of bad faith, laziness or simple incompetence on his part, I can only speculate.
In any event, if I have run afoul with Wikipedia's rules, please let me know - but for Sepsis II to selectively cite my edits to support his accusations, and to accuse me of "purposefully misrepresent[ing]" this material when I simply quoted a mainstream source (which in turn, quoted the subject) is both laughable and fallacious.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
Update: With regards to Sepsis II's allegation that I (by quoting a Canada.com article) was engaged in a plot to "purposefully misrepresent" CUPE's statement regarding its boycott of Israel (by using the quote that CUPE has voted to join the BDS movement "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination", it turns out that CUPE uses this wording itself on its website CUPE Ontario's Resolution 50, and that this was the wording quoted by Canada.com. I guess the source was right after all - granted, this wording is from the introduction to this document, rather than from the actual resolution itself. It's also interesting to note that this document is currently available on the CUPE website, while Sepsis II could only cite an archived page.
Although this section, if not the whole article, sorely needs reorganisation I have undone Engelo's changes for the following reasons:
So, it would seem that instead of trying to improve the article, Engelo's changes actually had the effect of watering down claims of antisemitism while at the same time strengthening and highlighting counter-claims. Clivel 0 ( talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This reorganization is very problematic and now reads as a very ideologically slanted piece, especially regarding the American Studies Association. Before, there were at least some sentences after the baseless charges against the ASA that undercut and complicated the baseless allegations. Now that you end with several repetitions of the baseless allegations, you problematically reinforce them, thus repeating the attempted smear campaign. Several authors now have written about how those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel whatsoever misrepresented the NYT quote in which Marez said "we have to start somewhere" and that the US has a particular responsibility because Israel is the largest recipient of US aid and that the ASA was responding to a call from Palestinian civil society that others around the world are also answering. The attack press cut the long quote back to 5 words, pretending that those 5 words were all that was said. In fact, every single article quoted here that implies the quote is anti-semitic are basing that charge on the truncated, incomplete quote that was manufactured by the attack press. While it is in fact true that we have to start somewhere in any struggle, the attack strategy of pretending those 5 words were all that was said was used again and again by those who will tolerate no criticisms of Israel to give the false impression that no other reasons were given. So you also give the wrong impression when you reproduce those charges without giving space for the counter-claims and ignore the numerous pieces out now pointing out that this was a smear campaign. This Wikipedia entry in fact now participates in that smear campaign. The comments of Roderick Ferguson and Jodi Melamed are apposite here: "In order to undermine the exercise of boycott as a form of witness, those who attack the ASA boycott must exclude Palestinian oppression from the debate as meaningless to academic freedom. This is the point our president, Curtis Marez, was making when he noted recently that the university presidents’ denunciation of the ASA has been silent regarding Israel’s abuses of Palestinian academics and Palestinian human rights in general. While he calls upon them to acknowledge such abuses, not to acknowledge them is the whole point for those who seek to narrow the field of permissible discussion about Israel/Palestine at U.S. universities. Having broken that taboo by questioning the legitimacy of Israeli occupation, the ASA leadership must now also be made excludable, by being painted as irrational, freedom-hating extremists and through baseless accusations of anti-Semitism." http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/academic-freedom-violence.html. Lloyd7777777 ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Clivel 0 I undid your edits on the Butler reply. You changed it in a way that does not reflect the crux of the argument. If you have issues with the current formulation, let's talk about it here before changing. Thanks Engelo ( talk) 10:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We need a new section that gives the reasons why BDS is a good idea and why it is not. Just arguments for and against instead of a mess of quotes from various sources. For arguments could include: (1) Its objectives are to advance human rights issues (2) Educational/awareness purposes, (3) It has a good chance to succeed, e.g., it proved itself with in SA Apartheid, (4) It fosters debate, (5) It is a non-violent form of resistance to oppression, (6) Boycotting Israeli academic institutions is good because they are part of the oppressive system (7) It is fundamentally democratic in the sense that every individual and every organization can decide whether to boycott or not by "voting with their wallets", as it were, in a bottom-up instead of a top-down process.
I made several clean up edits though of course they get reverted by a sock. Anyways, I found much of the text in the criticism section to not be appropriate. As'ad AbuKhalil was not criticizing BDS, Madonna never criticized BDS, it's questionable to say if Abbas criticized BDS (he supports a boycott of settlements, but not one of Israel), the Cape Town Opera never criticized BDS, NGO monitor's part only say that they do criticize BDS (surprise!) but of course this article is not a list of organizations which do criticize BDS, but what the criticism actually is, "through inflammatory incitement" is quite sensational, POV, and unnecessary, the source did not say Israeli presence but said Israeli occupation and settlements, and lastly Mahmoud Abbas is the President of Palestine, has been for awhile, just because some sources actively delegitimize Palestine doesn't mean we should. Sepsis II ( talk) 04:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My recent removal/changes to this article included:
Engelo does agree with my changes and asked that I bring this to the talk page. I welcome any comments.(
Hyperionsteel (
talk)
13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
(side note: As for your claim that "this is just one of several articles about the ASA and spurious charges", I can cite a lot of articles that take exactly the opposite opinion - shall I start adding those as well?).
Bill Gates nor anyone affiliated with Bill Gates said he sold stocks because of any pressure. It was only the word of pro-Palestinian groups. Not only that, Israel is one of Microsoft's most important countries, and has just in recent days invested even more into Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.597003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Near the lead, there is a "critics say..." type claim regarding a link between BDS and the delegitimization of Israel. 2 of the 3 sources did not even mention BDS nor was BDS even part of the story at all. The 3rd takes this weasel claim to anot her level, again saying "critics say..." but it did feature a quote that made the connection, so I left it despite the fact that most of the rest of the article essentially says that's an extremely weak claim.
// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.83.51 ( talk) 22:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the Achievements section supposed to list any boycott of Israel? Or just those initiated or affiliated with the BDS movement? Because right now it is the former - a quick glance at the listed boycotts and their references shows that only about five (!!!) out of the fifteen or so examples mention "BDS" or "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" or the global campaign. I realize the conflict is an extremely contentious issue, so I wasn't feeling particularly bold. Otherwise I would have pruned the section and kept only those where a connection with the BDS movement is sourced. 89.176.87.169 ( talk) 06:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The number of pictures in this article is increasing rapidly. I removed one picture of Neturei Karta Jews opposing Israel because there are already two similar pictures in the article.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 03:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC))
I strongly suggest Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:Indiscriminate - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."
I will also strongly suggest that Mau Ro review Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...[and] should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view."
I've removed the paragraph on NYACT sourced entirely from a single article in MondoWeiss. This group has not been cited by any mainstream media source and including it here is WP:UNDUE.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
There are numerous violations of Wikipedia's policy on external links (see: WP:EXT: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." These will be removed as well.
There are huge portions of this material that are sourced solely from websites such as Jewish Voice for Peace's own website, the Mondoweiss blog, BoycottIsrael.info, jewssayno.wordpress.com, jews4big.wordpress.com, jewishvoiceandopinion.com, etc., These are not WP:RS for Wikipedia. Citing material from these websites likely also violates WP:Promotion. This material will be removed as well.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 04:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
Ok. I've removed the material that explicitly violates Wikipedia's guidelines. I may make further changes once I have more time to devote to this.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
Hyperionsteel, you make three brief claims in support of your deletion of an entire section I added. Those claims are as follows: “Removing Original research, unsourced information, and information taken from non-RS sources. (the BDS movement's website is certainly not a RS).”
The information I published cannot be defined as original research according to the Wikipedia guidelines because every source is cited inline or hyperlinked to a relevant and reliable website or document containing information or direct quotes used in my addition to the page. For further information see: Wikipedia guidelines on Original Research (OR): The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. -you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented -all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source -an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged -The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.
Likewise, your claim of unsourced information is also incorrect. All information in the portion of text I posted is both researched and accurately sourced and cited. Furthermore, you will find that all information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided.
Lastly, I would like to address your apprehension regarding information you claim to be taken from a non-RS source, bdsmovement.net. I can understand concern for the neutrality of such a source and have therefore replaced one of the bdsmovement.net sources with a more RS source. As for the second bdsmovement.net citation, I cannot find another source for the “Economic Costs of the Occupation” document, however, it is not actually published or written by bdsmovement.net, but by Alternative Information Center, and simply re-posted on the bdsmovement webpage. I therefore see no need to delete the source, and believe that the Wikipedia Guidelines on Reliable Sources (RS) do substantiate my claim on the reliability of my sources (including bdsmovement.net): “Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.”
And, “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.” I believe that this point on presenting significant minority views fully supports my reasons for posting this portion of text in the first place, considering that the only mention of Jewish or Israeli perspective on BDS on the current page is in opposition to the movement. This leaves out a growing and important group of Jews and Israelis who publicly and vocally support the BDS movement -voices which are clearly verified in the references included in the article. Intentional omission of these voices is thus a serious violation of Wikipedia’s NPOV principle
Regardless of the two bdsmovement.net sources, there is no valid justification as to why the rest of the section should be deleted. Your claim of unsourced information is entirely incorrect, as all of the information in the portion of text is well-researched and accurately sourced and cited. All information is verifiable and contained in the hyperlinks or notes provided. If this is found to be false, please direct me to any uncited or unsourced text.
I have thus re-posted my text to the page, albeit with the modified source in place of bdsmovement.net. I am open to modifications of the text if they are necessary and justifiable.
In future please ensure that all deletions of material are only carried out in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia policies. Mau Ro ( talk) 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this opinion by a Pennsylvanian Senator belongs here. Here is the material that was removed: "Pennsylvanian State Representative Anthony Hardy Williams has called the BDS movement "racist". [1] ShulMaven ( talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"BDS is often criticized as being anti-Semitic" should be re-inserted in the article where it was removed. It is relevant and easily sourced.
NOTE: USER: Hyperionsteel has been removing content that does not fit their anti-Israeli bias. Wikipedia should not be used as a megaphone by this user to disseminate propaganda. Wikipedia needs input from all reliable sources and walks of life in order to remain independant. Thank you.-- Corpuskrusty ( talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Corpuskrusty Corpuskrusty ( talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)